Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against two deputy officers, in both their individual and official capacities, and against the county after plaintiff was arrested for violating a restraining order. Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his case with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The court concluded that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim where the deputies had at least arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff for the crime of knowingly violating a valid restraining order; even assuming that plaintiff suffered a constitutional deprivation, the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against the county where he failed to allege facts in his complaint that would demonstrate the existence of a county policy or custom that caused the deprivation; and the deputies, and by extension the county, were entitled to official immunity on plaintiff's false imprisonment claim, and this claim was properly dismissed by the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in all respects. View "Ulrich v. Pope County, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance analogue. The court concluded that a reasonable juror could find that defendant knew mephedrone was a controlled substance analogue and that defendant intended the mephedrone for human consumption. Accordingly, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of firearms by an unlawful user of controlled substances and possession of stolen firearms. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant was involved in a shooting; the district court did not abuse its discretion in varying upward to 132 months imprisonment; and any error in alternatively imposing an upward departure was harmless because the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent the error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Grandon" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to manufacture and distribute 1,000 or more marijuana plants. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. The court concluded that sufficient evidence established that defendant intentionally joined the conspiracy; sufficient evidence supported a finding that defendant could reasonably foresee that the conspiracy involved 1,000 or more marijuana plants; the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exclude a certain witness's testimony; the district court did not err in limiting the cross-examination of the witness regarding a police interview in an unrelated matter; and the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant safety-valve relief where he failed to truthfully provide the government all information and evidence that he had concerning the offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Polk" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and three counts of distributing methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction on the conspiracy count, his sentence of 324 months imprisonment, and ordered entry of a personal money judgment. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could determine that defendant's conspiracy involved at least 50 grams of pure methamphetamine; the district court did not err in its drug quantity findings; the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant qualified for the two level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c) for being an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity; the district court did not err in imposing an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon; the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 324 months, the bottom of his guidelines range; and, given the totality of the evidence regarding the quantities and prices of drugs sold, the frequency of sales, and the length of the conspiracy, the district court did not err in finding that defendant's drug trafficking involved at least $50,000 in proceeds. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's convictions, sentence, and money judgment. View "United States v. Alexander" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of a federal indictment charging him with distributing crack cocaine, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court's failure to inform him of the 15-year statutory minimum on count IV at his change of plea hearing amounted to a violation of due process and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The court concluded that even assuming such error was plain, the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights where defendant's sentence would remain the same at 20 years even without the 15-year term on count IV. Because defendant failed to make the requisite showing that but for the Rule 11 violation, he would have pleaded guilty, the court concluded that the district court did not commit plain error. Finally, the record provided no support for defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were each convicted of an offense for which he or she was required to register as a sex offender in Missouri. Each conviction occurred prior to June 30, 2008, when the Missouri Legislature enacted Missouri Revised Statute 589.426 (the Halloween Statute). This appeal stemmed from plaintiffs' challenge to the Halloween Statute. The district court concluded that plaintiffs' claims were moot because there was no reasonable expectation that they would be prosecuted under the Halloween Statute and that consequently plaintiffs no longer had standing to proceed. Thereafter, plaintiffs moved for attorneys' fees and costs as prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. 1988. The court concluded that the district court's October 27, 2008, order effectively served as a judicial pronouncement without judicial relief and did not confer prevailing party status upon plaintiffs. Because neither basis identified by plaintiffs conferred prevailing party status upon them, the court reversed the district court's grant of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs under section 1988, as well as the district court's amendment of the judgment under Rule 59 to reflect the award of attorneys' fees and costs. Because they were not entitled to attorneys' fees, their appeal of the district court's reduction of fees was dismissed as moot. Further, the district court did not err in determining that plaintiffs lacked standing and in dismissing plaintiffs' second amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction View "Doe I, et al v. Nixon, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a person required to register as a "predatory offender" in Minnesota, brought this action against two state officials, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, asserting that the enforcement of Minnesota's predatory offender registration statute, Minn. Stat. 243.166, violated his constitutional rights to due process. Plaintiff litigated the same procedural due process claims that he raised on this appeal in his direct appeal from the 2009 conviction for a registration offense. Therefore, plaintiff was precluded from litigating those points in this federal action. Plaintiff also litigated in the 2009 state-court appeal his contention that the registration statute violated substantive due process and, therefore, he was precluded from relitigating in this federal action whether the predatory registration statute had a rational basis. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Meyers v. Roy, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a handgun seized during a warrantless search of his vehicle, and body armor seized in a subsequent search of his home. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in concluding that the handgun was seized during a valid inventory search of his vehicle prior to the vehicle being towed. The district court denied defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that impounding the vehicle was consistent with applicable Missouri statutes and police department policy because, in the judgment of the officer, abandoning the car in a QuikTrip store's busy parking lot would unreasonably interfere with the property owner's possession. The court agreed with the district court that, although the officer exercised some discretion in deciding that the vehicle must be towed, he acted within the degree of standardized criteria or established routine that the court's prior towing cases required. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Arrocha" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of obstructing an official proceeding. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 51 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The court concluded that the district court correctly imposed the eight-level obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2J1.2(b)(1)(B) and the two-level upward adjustment where defendant's offense was extensive in scope, planning, or preparation under U.S.S.G. 2J1.2(B)(3)(C); the district court correctly denied the two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Bakhtiari" on Justia Law