Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to multiple drug charges. On appeal, defendant claimed that the district court committed procedural error by failing to address his objection to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court concluded that, even if the court assumed that defendant's objection was valid, unobjected-to facts in the PSR established an amount of methamphetamine resulting in the same Guidelines base offense level used by the district court when calculating defendant's Guidelines range. Therefore, the alleged procedural error would not have substantially influenced the outcome of defendant's sentencing and was harmless. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 170 months imprisonment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Freeman" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to distributing five grams or more of cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court concluded that it's holding in United States v. Johnson, that the court could not set aside a non-retroactivity determination as arbitrary and capricious, foreclosed defendant's argument that the Sentencing Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it decided not to make Amendment 709 retroactive. Because defendant was sentenced under the career offender provision, Amendments 750 and 759, which modified the drug quantity provision, were irrelevant. The court joined its sister circuits and held that the Fair Sentencing Act did not apply retroactively to defendants who were sentenced before August 3, 2010, and who sought a reduction in their sentences under section 3582(c)(2). In this case, defendant was sentenced in 2004; the statutory maximum associated with defendant's cocaine base offense in 2004 applied to his current section 3582(c)(2) proceedings; and his guideline range was the same today as it was in 2004 and, therefore, he was not eligible for section 3582(c)(2) relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Reeves" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed his convictions, from four separate trials, of criminally transmitting the HIV virus in violation of Iowa Code 709C.1. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief. The court concluded that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to him because he knew his HIV status to be "positive" and engaged in the type of "intimate contact" that the statute was plainly intended to prohibit; petitioner was precluded from asserting a void-for-vagueness challenge to the statute based on the hypothetical situations posed in his petitions and brief; and petitioner was precluded from asserting an overbreadth challenge to the statute because he did not raise any First Amendment concerns. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief. View "Musser v. Mapes" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction of being a felon in possession of firearms. The court concluded that the evidence taken as a whole amply supported the jury's conclusion that defendant knew about and had possession of the weapons and, therefore, the district court did not err in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's prior conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm where the evidence was relevant to a material issue and not unduly prejudicial; the district court did not err in refusing to give defendant's two requested jury instructions; and the district court did not commit plain error in imposing a minimum fine under the Sentencing Guidelines. View "United States v. Cornelison" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for (1) carjacking, using or carrying a firearm in relation to a violent crime, obstructing justice, and witness tampering, in his first trial; and (2) two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm in the second trial. The court concluded that, even if the court assumed that the district court had the authority to grant defendant a retroactive competency determination more than a year after judgment, defendant failed to persuade the court that the district court committed reversible error in denying his requested relief; the district court did not err in finding defendant competent to stand trial and to proceed with sentencing; a jury reasonably found defendant possessed the firearms as required for conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(g); the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress where there was probable cause to search for evidence of the robbery; defendant did not suffer any harm as a result of alleged sentencing errors; and defendant's remaining challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence of carjacking and the admission of evidence related to the July 27, 2008 burglary were foreclosed by the court's rejection of identical claims in defendant's son's direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Casteel" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for knowingly and intentionally distributing a mixture of heroine to an individual resulting in the individual's death, with the distribution occurring within 1,000 feet of a school, and knowingly and intentionally distributing a mixture containing heroine and a mixture containing cocaine base. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial where no Brady violation occurred related to the government's presentation of testimony from a certain witness; and the court granted the government's motion to strike defendant's supplemental brief where the only documentation defendant provided regarding transcripts from the motion in limine hearing regarding the admissibility of evidence was an authorization-for-payment request to the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ford" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to distributing a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine and subsequently appealed the district court's imposition of his sentence after remand. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant a two-level minor-role adjustment where it correctly concluded that a U.S.S.G. 3B1.2 reduction was not applicable; the law-of-the-case doctrine did not preclude the district court from imposing the $10,000 fine; the sentence was substantively reasonable; and there were no additional nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, granted counsel leave to withdraw, and denied the motion for appointment of new counsel. View "United States v. Lara" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for receiving child pornography and possessing child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a change of venue where the district court considered Rule 18 factors and where the security concerns from holding the trial in Jonesboro outweighed the inconvenience of holding the trial in Little Rock; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for a new trial where the evidence found on the laptop was sufficient to establish that defendant was the person who downloaded the child pornography and that the files containing child pornography were knowingly downloaded and saved in the laptop's permanent memory; there was no unfair prejudice in the publication of the video clips at issue to the jury; there was no error in applying a five-level enhancement; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vary even further downward. View "United States v. Worthey" on Justia Law

After defendant was charged with bank robbery and using and carrying a firearm during a bank robbery, he was transferred from a Kansas correctional facility, where he was imprisoned on state charges, to the District of Nebraska to appear on the federal charges. The district court determined that the transfer violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA), 18 U.S.C. app. 2 section 1, et seq. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's dismissal of the federal indictment without prejudice. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the indictment without prejudice where defendant had not alleged bad faith by the government or a "pattern of negligence" and where defendant presented no evidence, other than his own statements, that he would suffer prejudice simply as a result of uncertainties if he was reprosecuted. View "United States v. Macomber" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to reentering the United States illegally after being deported for an aggravated felony conviction. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's imposition of a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because defendant had been convicted of a crime of violence previously. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing, concluding that defendant's Nebraska conviction for manslaughter was not a conviction for a crime of violence within the meaning of the applicable Guideline. On remand, the district court may apply further the modified categorical approach as may be appropriate where Nebraska's manslaughter offense was broader than its generic federal counterpart. View "United States v. Roblero-Ramirez" on Justia Law