Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner sought authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, asserting that Miller v. Alabama announced a new rule that applied retroactively. Miller held that a sentencing scheme that required a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for certain crimes committed by defendants who were under the age of 18 violated the Eighth Amendment. The court granted defendant an authorization to file a successive section 2255 motion because he made a prima facie showing that his motion contained a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. The court joined other circuits in adopting the proposition that a prima facie showing in this context was simply a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the district court. View "Johnson v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendants, brothers Mathew and Timothy, appealed their convictions related to their participation in Social Security fraud. The court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mathew knowingly participated in a conspiracy to defraud the United States and that he intended to steal government property; the court rejected Mathew's challenges to his theft of government property conviction by arguing that the government failed to establish that the Social Security funds Timothy received were a "thing of value of the United States;" the government also presented sufficient evidence to support Timothy's convictions; and Timothy's sentence was not unreasonable where the district court considered 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not clearly err in weighing them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and Timothy's sentence. View "United States v. Shirley" on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals involved defendant's direct appeal of his convictions and his appeal of the dismissal of the motions pertaining to a criminal forfeiture count and an in rem civil action. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment, or alternatively, suppress defendant's statements made to counsel; did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress statements made to a co-conspirator; did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit all 170 hours of recordings or through its comments regarding defendant's pro se presentation of evidence; and did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to sever. The court also held that defendant was not entrapped as a matter of law into committing certain offenses; the district court did not err in admitting the fingerprint cards at issue; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the criminal forfeiture count and did not abuse its discretion in granting the government's motion for same; and defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy was not violated by the government's in rem civil forfeiture complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The court concluded that the district court did not err when it determined that the front yard of defendant's residence where he displayed the stolen motorcycle was outside the curtilage of the home, and therefore the officers could enter that area to observe the motorcycle and its VIN number more closely without violating defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The court also concluded that the district court did not commit clear error when it determined that the detective's affidavit did not violate Franks v. Delaware. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bausby" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for receiving child pornography, enticement of a minor to engage in illicit sexual activities, and production of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the severance of counts two and three from count four; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior bad acts; the district court did not violate defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause by preventing him from cross-examining a certain witness about two pornographic videos seized from her computer; defendant waived his claim that the district court violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when it admitted his post-arrest statements; and the district court did not err in applying U.S.S.G. 2A3.1 under 18 U.S.C. 2241 and 2242. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence stemming from his robbery of the same bank twice within a sixteen-day period. The court concluded that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his custodial statement where the Constitution did not mandate electronically recording a defendant's custodial interrogation; the sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court duly considered the evidence, defendant's arguments, and the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors in imposing and explaining defendant's sentence; the district court did not err in finding defendant was a threat to society; the district court did not err in applying the first-degree murder cross reference for robbery under U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(c)(1) and 2A1.1(a); and the sentence was substantively reasonable considering the serious nature and circumstances of defendant's crimes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. French, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Tunisia and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitioned for review of the BIA's order finding him removable because his July 2010 conviction for violating a Kansas drug paraphernalia statute was a conviction "relating to a controlled substance" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The court denied the petition, concluding that the BIA correctly concluded that a conviction for violating the Kansas paraphernalia statute was, categorically, related to a controlled substance within the meaning of section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and use of the modified categorical approach as urged by petitioner was unnecessary; the court rejected petitioner's premise that Matter of Paulus was controlling agency authority the BIA arbitrarily ignored; and it was not error to admit and rely on evidence outside the record of conviction where the BIA concluded that the personal use exception did not apply. View "Mellouli v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged his 2007 state-court convictions and resulting 72-year sentence for various felony offenses. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. The court concluded that the district court erred in determining that trial counsel's dual representation of defendant and his girlfriend was not a conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance where counsel was prevented from exploring other possible plea negotiations that would have been more favorable to defendant. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Plunk v. Hobb" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's revocation of his release and sentence of 31 months' imprisonment. The district court found that defendant had violated mandatory, standard, and special conditions of his supervised release. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a juvenile witness's out of court statements at the revocation hearing because the government's explanation for not producing the witness was reasonably satisfactory and because the testimony and other evidence offered in place of the witness's live testimony were sufficiently reliable. The court rejected defendant's argument that the district court improperly found witness tampering to be an alternative basis for revocation. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction on three counts of wire fraud, asserting that his cross-examination testimony was improperly compelled. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that defendant initially made a knowing waiver of the Fifth Amendment; the district court properly ruled that the questions at issue were within the proper scope; and the court rejected defendant's contention that his testimony was improperly compelled because the district court threatened him with economic sanctions. View "United States v. Musk" on Justia Law