Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment to a law enforcement officer on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging an excessive use of force claim. The district court determined that the officer had used a reasonable amount of force and that, even if the Taser application constituted excessive force, it was not clearly established at the time that the use of force resulting in only de minimis injuries might violate the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed, concluding that plaintiff had not set forth sufficient evidence to show that the officer's application of a Taser caused more than de minimis injury. Accordingly, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate plaintiff's then clearly established constitutional rights. Further, the court found no error in the application of the pleading standard set forth in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "LaCross v. City of Duluth, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a child and one count of possession of child pornography. Defendant appealed his sentence of 480 months' imprisonment. The district court did not err in applying a four level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(4) for offenses involving material that portrayed sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence and a five level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 4B1.5(b)(1) for engaging in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct. Further, defendant's sentence was reasonable where the record indicated that the district court considered all the relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Pappas" on Justia Law

Defendant, a manager at the Ford Motor Company, was convicted of four counts of willful income tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201 for failing to report and then concealing kickbacks received from Ford vendors during each of the 2001 through 2004 tax years. The court concluded that there was more than sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt, with respect to each count, that defendant committed an act of tax evasion within six years of the indictment; the district court did not err in not suppressing defendant's involuntary statements made during an agent's interview; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a Franks v. Delaware hearing; the district court's tax loss findings were not clearly erroneous; in any event, the court need not consider the tax loss findings issues because defendant made no showing that the items in question - individually or in combination - would have lowered his base offense level by reducing the net tax loss; defendant's sentence was reasonable where the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in fashioning an appropriate sentence; and the court rejected defendant's restitution claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Perry" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The government cross-appealed, contending that the district court improperly denied restitution to nearly all of the individual and institutional victims of defendant's fraud scheme and miscalculated the value of property defendant was required to forfeit because of the scheme. The court concluded that the district court did not procedurally err in calculating defendant's sentence; the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility; the district court properly applied a four-level enhancement for his leadership role in the offense; and defendant's claim that the district court erred with its upward departure of his sentence was without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's sentence, but vacated and remanded the restitution orders to allow the parties to present additional evidence regarding the losses the victims sustained and the proceeds defendant gained from the scheme. View "United States v. Adetiloye" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon in connection with the conspiracy. The court concluded that the government did not breach the cooperation agreement when it used defendant's self-incriminating statements from his proffer interview. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 209 month sentence after departing downward from the bottom of defendant's guideline range of 262 to 327 months. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ozmon" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions of conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of actual methamphetamine, and of aiding and abetting the distribution of fifty grams or more of methamphetamine mixture. Because reasonable suspicion existed to extend the traffic stop, and alternatively, because defendant consented to the continuation of the encounter, the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Further, the evidence at trial was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Quintero-Felix" on Justia Law

Defendant owned more than 300 acres of land where he has held weekend music festivals at which drug use was widespread. Defendant invited various bands to perform at the festivals and he also performed with his own Grateful Dead tribute band. After law enforcement conducted an undercover investigation into the illegal drug sales at the festivals, defendant was indicted on one count of managing a drug involved premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(2). Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. The court concluded that section 856(a)(2) did not require proof that defendant had the illegal purpose to use, manufacture, sell, or distribute controlled substances; it was sufficient that defendant intended to make his property available to others who had that purpose; section 856(a)(2) did not violate the Fifth Amendment due process clause or defendant's First Amendment rights; and the indictment satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c) by adequately stating the offense with which defendant was being charged. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Tebeau" on Justia Law

In 2005, Curtis McGhee and another individual brought claims against the City alleging violations of civil rights sounding in malicious prosecution. The City sought coverage under insurance policies issued by CIC and Columbia. On appeal, the City and McGhee challenged the district court's order granting summary judgment to CIC and Columbia, on CIC's and Columbia's declaratory judgment claims concerning coverage under the various insurance policies. The court concluded that the district court correctly refused to consider and correctly denied additional discovery of extrinsic evidence. The court also concluded that the alleged malicious prosecution and resulting personal injuries occurred when the underlying charges were filed against McGhee in 1977. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment that the following policies did not afford coverage to the City for the malicious prosecution claims: the two excess liability policies issued by CIC; four of the special excess liability policies issued by Columbia; and the commercial umbrella liability policy issued by Columbia. As to the 1977-78 special excess liability policy issued by Columbia, the court reversed the district court's judgment regarding the applicability of the reasonable expectations doctrine. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Chicago Ins. Co., et al v. City of Council Bluffs, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant and codefendant were convicted of conspiring to violate and violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c)-(d), and for three murders in aid of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1959. At issue on appeal was whether defendant received ineffective assistance based on counsel's use of peremptory strikes during voir dire. Counsel's race based jury selection strategy was designed to produce a jury that would closely scrutinize the government's case and be less likely to impose the death penalty. While this strategy did not create the desired result, no evidence had been provided to show that the resulting jury was biased against defendant. Therefore, the court concluded that defendant's claim for ineffective assistance of counsel failed. Further, the court rejected defendant's constitutional challenges to his death sentence, as well as defendant's challenges to the government's reliance on three aggravating factors which were accepted by the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order dismissing defendant's petition for habeas corpus relief. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The court concluded that, although the trial court limited aspects of cross-examination, there was no substantial prejudice to defendant. Defendant's attorney procured the testimony he sought in almost every instance, and ample evidence supported the convictions. The court agreed with the district court that defendant's second-degree burglary conviction constituted a crime of violence. Because defendant conceded that he had a prior conviction for a controlled substance offense, he had at least two qualifying prior convictions under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(a). Therefore, the district court did not err in sentencing defendant as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Olsson" on Justia Law