Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of attempted transportation of a minor with the intent to engage in sexual activity. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant and the district court properly denied his Rule 29 motion. The court also held that the district court did not err in its jury instruction on the theories involving child pornography. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Goodwin" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual abuse of a minor and two counts of abusive sexual contact relating to the abuse of his adopted daughters. Defendant appealed his conviction. The district court did not err by excluding under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and 412 evidence of the victims' sexual and physical abuse history and their prior adolescent sexual experiences; because the victims' testimony was sufficient to support defendant's convictions, the district court did not err in denying his motion for acquittal based on lack of physical evidence; and, in light of the testimony and exhibits presented, the district court did not clearly err in finding that one of the victim's recantation was not credible and was instigated by defendant and his wife. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Seibel" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of arresting officers on Fourth Amendment claims he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, and the district court did not err in concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity on his false arrest claim; pursuant to Kurtz v. City of Shrewbury, plaintiff's allegation of malicious prosecution could not sustain a valid claim under section 1983; even if Kurtz did not preclude the malicious prosecution claim, summary judgment in favor of the officers nonetheless would be proper because the record showed that the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff and initiate a criminal prosecution; and the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's state law claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Joseph v. Allen, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of producing and manufacturing child pornography, preserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered in the searches of his vehicle and residence. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during and following an Arizona traffic stop, in part claiming the execution of the search warrant for the external hard drive found in his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment. Defendant also challenged the execution of the federal search warrants for his Omaha apartment, in part claiming those search warrants were tainted by the information from the allegedly unlawful Arizona search. The court concluded that the law enforcement officer did not exceed the scope of defendant's consent when searching the vehicle for drug activity. Having concluded that the Arizona child pornography search did not violate the Fourth Amendment, the court rejected defendant's claim that the illegality of the Arizona search tainted the Omaha search warrant affidavit. Accordingly, the court held the searches did not violate the Fourth Amendment and affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Suing" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to distributing more than five grams of methamphetamine and sentenced to 100 months in prison, the bottom of the advisory guidelines range. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court committed clear procedural sentencing error when it assigned three criminal history points to a prior state drug conviction because it was based on relevant conduct. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err when it applied the proper standard and found that the 2011 state court conviction was a prior sentence for criminal history purposes because it was imposed for a separate and distinct offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Petitioner alleged that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to evidence that petitioner had access to, used, and knew how to manufacture methamphetamine in 2005 as improper evidence of prior bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The court agreed with the district court's finding that the 2005 evidence did not fall within Rule 404(b) and that petitioner's actions in 2005 were sufficiently close in time to the charged conduct to be relevant and admissible under Rule 402 and 403. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Buchanan v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty for failure to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and 10 years supervised release. On appeal, defendant challenged two of his special conditions of supervised release. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a complete ban on defendant's possessing or obtaining pornographic material was appropriate because they were supported by individualized fact finding and were reasonably related to the pertinent 8 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors; the special conditions did not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary; and the special conditions were not unconstitutionally broad or vague. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mefford" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of charges related to methamphetamine and firearms. The court held that the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress the statements he made after he was asked to exit his vehicle, the handgun and a methamphetamine pipe located in the vehicle, and firearms seized during the search of his home. Further, the court affirmed the jury's conviction and the district court's denial of defendant's renewed motion for acquittal; the court need not decide whether the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement for possessing a stolen firearm under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(4) because the district court used an offense level of 37 based on the drug offenses calculated in defendant's sentence; and the court rejected defendant's contentions related to his criminal history. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 60 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in imposing two special conditions of supervised release requiring advanced approval by his Probation Officer before he could reside with or contact children under the age of 18, including his own, or posses any material that was sexually stimulating or sexually oriented. The court concluded that the restrictions at issue impacted constitutional rights but were not sweeping. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its substantial discretion. View "United States v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, defendants challenged the constitutionality of a provision of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq., under which they were convicted. Defendants argued that SORNA violated the nondelegation doctrine of the United States Constitution by giving the Attorney General authority to determine its applicability to sex offenders convicted before the statute's enactment. The court held that SORNA's relatively narrow delegation of this authority was guided by an intelligible principle and was consistent with the requirements of the nondelegation doctrine. Moreover, the court was bound by its precedent in United States v. Kuehl. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court upholding the constitutionality SORNA. View "United States v. Fernandez" on Justia Law