Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and money laundering. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of one conspiracy; the district court did not plainly err or abused its discretion in admitting statements made to an agent under Federal Rule of Evidence 410; and defendant's 276-month sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. McCauley" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. petition for habeas relief, challenging a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) denial of a request for a nunc pro tunc designation to, and denial of credit for, time he spent in physical custody prior to completion of a state term of imprisonment. The court concluded that defendant's federal sentence must run consecutive to his state sentence based on the plain language of 18 U.S.C. 3584(a); the BOP correctly interpreted the district court's silence as requiring consecutive sentences pursuant to section 3584(a); the court rejected the challenge as inconsistent with the express bar on double credit found in 18 U.S.C. 3585(b) and rejected petitioner's futility theory; and the BOP properly applied the primary jurisdiction doctrine and did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for nunc pro tun designation. View "Elwell v. Fisher" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to a plea agreement to one count of possession of child pornography. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(3) because his guilty plea lacked a factual basis. The court concluded that no Rule 11(b)(3) error occurred, as sufficient evidence existed from which the district court could reasonably conclude that defendant committed the charged offense. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea because defendant failed to establish a fair and just reason for the withdrawal of the plea. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted in 1997 of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's refusal to reduce his sentence based on Amendments 750 and 759 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant conceded that the record before the district court did not reflect what proportion of the drug quantity for which he was accountable in 1997 consisted of cocaine base, cocaine, and marijuana. Even on appeal, defendant still had not proffered a theory under which the evidence of record could support a finding of fewer than 3,000 kilograms of marijuana equivalent. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court properly denied defendant's motion based on a failure of proof and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Benson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for offenses related to a bank robbery. The court concluded that, even if the court assumed that the initial search of the cell phone at issue was improper, the subsequent search warrant satisfied both of the independent source requirements; the untainted contents of the search warrant affidavit provided probable cause; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of cell phone photos and video because they were intrinsic to the crimes charged and Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) did not apply to the photos and video from the cell phone; the admission of the photos and videos did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because the probative value of the photos and video was not substantially outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice; the GPS reports were non-testimonial and their admission did not violate defendant's Confrontation Clause rights; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on an alleged violation of the district court's sequestration order; and the evidence presented at trial was more than sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant was guilty of the crimes for which he was charged. Accordingly, the court confirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Brooks, Jr." on Justia Law

After defendant admitted to violating several conditions of a term of supervised release as part of his sentence for possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, the district court revoked his supervision and sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment followed by 24 months of supervised release. Defendant appealed, challenging a special condition of his supervision. The court concluded that the supervised condition prohibiting defendant from having contact with his girlfriend was reasonably related to the relevant sentencing factors and was not a greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary to protect the public and deter future criminal behavior. The court concluded, however, that prohibiting defendant from contacting his girlfriend's family was not reasonably related to the relevant sentencing factors and was more restrictive than necessary where the record showed no problematic instances involving defendant and the family and offered no indication of the extent of their relationship. View "United States v. Wroblewski" on Justia Law

This interlocutory appeal arose out of the district court's denial of summary judgment on defendants' qualified immunity defenses to plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1-2, claims. The court declined to address the merits of defendants' qualified immunity defense because the district court's analysis denying summary judgment was so scant that the court was unable to discern if the district court even applied both steps of the qualified immunity inquiry to all of the summary judgment claims. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Robbins, et al v. Becker, Sr., et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of his petition to defer removal pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and dismissal of his appeal. To the extent petitioner challenged the legal standard used by the BIA, the court rejected that challenge on the merits. Petitioner's remaining challenges, including his factual dispute with the BIA's application of the "willful blindness" standard, were foreclosed by the criminal alien bar in 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) and were beyond the court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for review. View "Gallimore v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to making false statements and was sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in considering defendant's arrest record in the context of his broader criminal history as a partial basis for increasing his criminal history category by two levels; the district court did not err in imposing an upward departure based on U.S.S.G. 5K2.0(a)(1)(A); and the sentence imposed was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Michael Todd Never Misses A Shot" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the judgment of the district court following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his girlfriend's vehicle. Defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm. The court concluded, given the totality of the circumstances in this case, that it was reasonable for law enforcement to believe that there was at least a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity occurring when defendant arrived at the place and time designated by an informant to transact a firearm sale. Accordingly, the court found that defendant's warrantless arrest was supported by probable cause. The court also concluded that the police in this case had probable cause to believe that defendant's girlfriend's vehicle contained contraband, namely the firearm. Further, the court affirmed the district court's finding that defendant's post-Miranda admission to police about the location of the weapon in the vehicle provided an independent basis to find probable cause to conduct a search. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Winarske" on Justia Law