Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, an involuntarily committed mental patient, sued various officials alleging that a facility-wide change in policy deprived him of a previously held ability to walk unsupervised around an unsecured area of the grounds at the Center where he was committed. Where, as here, it was difficult even to characterize the claimed restriction as a bodily restraint, the balancing test of the professional-judgment standard necessarily lead the court to conclude that plaintiff's claims failed. Even if plaintiff had articulated a protected liberty interest, there was no substantive due process violation where nothing about the policy at issue shocked the conscience. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's due process claim. View "Montin v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion for termination of his supervised release, arguing that his five year term of supervised release had already expired as a matter of law, or alternatively, that equitable considerations favored termination. The court concluded that, under 18 U.S.C. 3624(e), defendant's supervised release began as a matter of law on the day that he was "freed from confinement." Defendant's term of supervised release thus began when he was released from federal custody on November 15, 2010, and did not expire in September 2012 as he contended. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendant's equitable arguments where neither 18 U.S.C. 3583(e) nor relevant case law required the district court to explain its denial of early termination of supervised release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mosby" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction for one count of manufacturing 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court imposed a bottom-of-the range sentence of 188 months noting that it had received defendant's arguments requesting a variance and the district court expressly discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Hendrix" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a special condition of his supervised release which stemmed from his conviction for receiving and distributing child pornography. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing special condition 18, which stated that defendant shall not possess, view, or otherwise use any material that was sexually stimulating or sexually oriented deemed to be inappropriate by his probation officer in consultation with his treatment provider. The special condition was neither overbroad nor vague considering the totality of the circumstances. View "United States v. Fonder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion at trial by admitting expert testimony regarding the distribution of methamphetamine because the evidence was relevant and defendant had not demonstrated that the testimony caused unfair prejudice that substantially outweighed its probative value. Unlike impermissible courier profile evidence, the expert's testimony here was relevant to rebut defendant's defense that he was merely a drug user and not a trafficker; even if the testimony was cumulative, it likely would have been harmless; and any allusion to possible sexual conduct by defendant was elliptical and too attenuated to prejudice him unfairly. View "United States v. Schwarck" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the government by unlawfully evading tax obligations. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's restitution order. The court concluded that the district court did not err in adopting an IRS agent's restitution calculations; the district court's oral and written findings were sufficiently thorough to support its restitution order; the district court did not clearly err by relying on the agent's testimony that the boating-related expenses were personal expenses that were unlawfully deducted as business expenses; and the court rejected defendant's arguments regarding the restitution payment schedule and defendant's complexity exception argument under 18 U.S.C. 3663A(c)(3)(B). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wirth" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 48 months' imprisonment for unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. After defendant admitted a violation of the terms of his supervised release, the district court revoked his release and sentenced him to 12 months' imprisonment, but subsequently amended its judgment twice. As authority for amending the judgment, the district court cited Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a). The court held that there was no reversible error in the district court's original sentence; the record of the second hearing suggested that the district court expected the Bureau of Prisons to take some action, but was frustrated that it would not "accept the Court's positions" about "when the sentence was supposed to run;" and, therefore, the original sentence was not the product of a mistake in the district court's application of the sentencing guidelines or a failure to consider the relevant statutory factors. Therefore, the court concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, the district court lacked authority to modify a sentence imposed for defendant's violation of supervised release. Accordingly, the court vacated the second amended judgment and directed that the original be reinstated. View "United States v. Cannon" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and restitution award stemming from his guilty plea to charges of drug-related conspiracy, money laundering, structuring to avoid reporting requirements, and conspiracy to engage in the interstate transportation of stolen goods. The court held that the district court did not plainly err or abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 200 months' imprisonment; the court was unable to provide meaningful appellate review because the record did not reflect how the district court balanced the U.S.S.G. 5E1.2 factors in imposing defendant's $500,000 fine and, therefore, the court vacated the fine and remanded for redetermination of this portion of his sentence; and the district court did not clearly err in imposing a restitution award in the amount of $300,000. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Kay" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for three counts of transportation of child pornography and three counts of possession of child pornography. The court held that sufficient probable cause supported the search warrant and rejected defendant's argument that the warrant failed to establish a nexus between the items seized and the location to be searched; the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court's refusal to instruct the jury on the entrapment defense violated his due process right to a fair trial where there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find entrapment; the district court properly denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence; the district court did not err in applying a five-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(B); and the district court's presumptively reasonable sentence did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Chase" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his plea of guilty to one count of distribution of 28 grams or more of cocaine base and one count of distribution of marijuana. The court declined to address defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims because he had not shown that the record was sufficiently developed to address his arguments or that a miscarriage of justice would result if the court declined to do so; the district court did not plainly err in failing to grant him "credit" for time spent in state custody under U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(b); the court need not decide whether the district court erred in regards to defendant's general procedural sentencing challenges because any error was harmless; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where he received the statutory mandatory minimum sentence and the district court was lenient in ordering his federal sentence to run concurrent with the remaining portion of his Nebraska parole revocation sentence under U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(c). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law