Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was found guilty of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine and distributing crack cocaine. The district court found that defendant's conspiracy conviction qualified for an enhanced sentence under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) because of two prior felony drug offenses and that defendant was a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 because of two prior controlled substance convictions. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of count one and five of the indictment; the error in the section 851 notice did not deprive him of notice about which conviction the government intended to use, the enhancement of his sentence for which they were asking, or any opportunity to dispute the conviction; if defendant's 2001 delivery offense did not receive a criminal history point, it could not be considered a prior felony conviction for sentencing purposes and therefore, the court applied the rule of lenity and vacated defendant's sentence of 360 months' imprisonment under count five; and the fact that defendant's indictment listed pre-Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, quantities did not affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings where it was established at trial that the conspiracy involved amounts of cocaine base far in excess of the current requirements. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing in regards to count five. View "United States v. Higgins" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to recieving and possessing materials involving the sexual exploitation of minors. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search at his residence pursuant to a warrant. The court concluded that the first search warrant authorized the search of the VHS tapes at issue; was supported by probable cause; even if the search warrant was not supported by probable cause, the evidence gained from the search was admissible pursuant to the Leon good-faith exception; and was not invalidated by an agent's omission. Further, plaintiff's "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument regarding the second warrant also failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hager" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of receipt and possession of child pornography. The court held that there was no violation of the Edwards v. Arizona rule where defendant's statements to the interrogating officers were not an unequivocal or unambiguous request for counsel and the police were not required to ask clarifying questions; defendant voluntarily waived his rights under Miranda and his statements to the officers were voluntary; the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find that defendant possessed child pornography that had been transported using a means or facility of interstate commerce; and the court declined to address defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which should be raised in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Havlik" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a final judgment of the district court revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 21 months imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court's consideration of a police report, which a probation officer read into evidence, violated his limited due process rights to question adverse witnesses at a revocation hearing. The court rejected the government's arguments of harmless error and waiver before addressing the merits of defendant's appeal. On the merits, the court determined that the district court should have allowed defendant the opportunity to cross-examine an adverse witness and erred by considering the facts contained in the police report read into evidence. Because the government knew of its obligation and inexcusably failed to meet it, the case was remanded without the opportunity to expand the record. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 41 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm as a felon and domestic abuse misdemeanor. After defendant stipulated to violating multiple terms of his supervised release, the district court revoked his supervised release and ordered him not to have contact with his domestic abuse victim and her family members. The court held that the district court was not required to make factual findings because it articulated other sufficient justifications for the no-contact order. The court need not decide whether it could interpret the no-contact order as a non-binding recommendation because the court accepted the government's argument that even if the district court did improperly issue an unauthorized binding order, the error was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, asserting claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. The court held that petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel both failed under Strickland v. Washington. The court found no merit in petitioner's unsupported allegations regarding the manner in which his co-conspirators testified and speculation that the prosecutor coached the testimony. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Morelos v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing that the resentencing court had relied on an erroneous presentence report, violating his right to due process. The district court denied his motion as time-barred, but issued a certificate of appealability. The court held that the motion was not second or successive to his earlier section 2255 motions because his present claim had not yet arisen. The court held however, that petitioner's delay in pursuing the expungement of his disciplinary actions precluded a finding that he was diligent, rendering his section 2255 motion untimely under section 2255(f)(4). Petitioner also failed to establish the first element of equitable tolling. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Deroo v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base. After receiving two downward departures from his sentence, defendant moved for a third downward departure due to an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines in 2010. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion because the bottom of his guideline range remained 240 months. View "United States v. Golden" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of receiving and distributing child pornography. The district court ordered him to pay restitution to the victim. The victim challenged the restitution award by direct appeal and in a petition for mandamus. Because the victim lacked standing as a nonparty to bring a direct appeal, the court granted the motions to dismiss by defendant and the government. The court had jurisdiction over her mandamus petition under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)93), but denied her petition because all of her losses were not clearly and indisputably traceable to defendant's crime. View "United States v. Fast" on Justia Law

Defendant, a member of the Spirit Lake Tribe in North Dakota, was charged with crimes related to her administration of the Tribe's Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Defendant was found guilty of embezzlement and willful misapplication. On appeal, defendant challenged her conviction and sentence. The court held that the district court did not err when it instructed the jury that, to find defendant guilty of misapplying tribal property, it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that she used tribal funds or property "knowing that such use [was] unauthorized, or unjustifiable, or wrongful." The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give the proposed good faith instruction but permitting defendant to introduce evidence that supported her claim of good faith and argue its significance to the jury. Finally, the court held that defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a special condition of her probation, that required her to abstain from the use of alcohol and to submit to drug and alcohol screening, was without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Robertson" on Justia Law