Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and (e). On appeal, defendant argued that his prior state conviction for attempted use of a minor in a sexual performance did not qualify as a predicate offense under section 2251(e) and challenged his sentence on other grounds. The court held that defendant's state conviction effectively triggered the increased mandatory minimum of twenty-five years pursuant to section 2251(e) and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Zigler" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of carjacking (Count I), one count of brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (Count II), and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count III). On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court held that the district court's discussion of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors demonstrated that it considered the relevant factors and provided a reasoned basis for its decision; the district court sufficiently explained defendant's sentence, and any error in grouping Counts I and III was harmless where the district court made clear that it would have imposed a life sentence even absent the grouping of Counts I and III. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ford" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for failing to account for and pay employment taxes. On defendant's first appeal, the court affirmed his conviction but vacated his sentence, remanding for resentencing. The court held that additional findings were needed to support a conclusion that certain conduct was relevant conduct for the purpose of determining a loss amount pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court addressed the issue on remand and sentenced defendant to 55 months' imprisonment. Defendant again appealed. The court held that the district court did not commit procedural error by failing to consider the applicability of a traditional departure; the district court did not commit a due process violation by applying a preponderance of the evidence standard; and the district court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence where it fully explained why the lower advisory guidelines range at the second sentencing did not alter the court's general view of the case and where the record adequately supported the determination that defendant's post-sentencing conduct revealed ongoing efforts to conceal assets and cloud title to the property at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McLain" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction of one count of aggravated sexual abuse. The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain his conviction; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a witness's testimony where the evidence was probative of defendant's intent and motive; any error in admitting the testimony of defendant's former wife was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence against him and the limiting instruction given to the jury; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for a lesser included offense instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Tarnow" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a retired military police officer, sued the city and its former police chief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff claimed that the police chief used excessive force when he, without identifying himself as a police officer and dressed in street clothes, charged at plaintiff. The court held that, because there was enough evidence of a Fourth Amendment seizure, the court need not decide whether a reasonable jury could find the police chief's conduct shocked the conscience in violation of the Fourth Amendment; a reasonable jury could find that the police chief was an overzealous police officer who used excessive force and unreasonably caused plaintiff severe injuries; and the police chief was not entitled to qualified immunity. The court also held that plaintiff could not establish that the police chief was - as a matter of Missouri law - a final policymaker for the city. Because no reasonable jury could find the city liable under section 1983, the district court correctly granted the city's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to misuse of a social security number. On appeal, defendant alleged that the district court should have dismissed the indictment because her arrest and detention violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a). The court concluded that defendant was entitled to the protections of Rule 5(a) because she was taken into criminal custody; Rule 5(a) was violated because she was not taken promptly before a magistrate judge; even if the district court's ruling was error, the appropriate remedy was not dismissal of the indictment where there was no showing of prejudice to defendant from the delay between arrest and appearance; and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Chavez" on Justia Law

Debtor, an inmate serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole, appealed from a bankruptcy court's order denying his motion for contempt for violation of his discharge injunction. The $45.00 automatically collected from debtor's inmate account was properly forwarded to the State in partial satisfaction of the post-petition costs of incarceration for which debtor remained liable under the Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act's, Mo. Ann. Stat. 217.825-217.841, judgment. Debtor's additional arguments lacked merit. Therefore, the bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that the bankruptcy court's decision was not based on clearly erroneous factual determinations or erroneous legal conclusions. The bankruptcy court acted within its discretion and the panel affirmed the judgment. View "Smith v. State of Missouri" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from a search of his vehicle. The court concluded that, even if a speeding violation did not provide probable cause for the traffic stop, the stop was justified based on a reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved in trafficking marijuana. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of mail fraud and two counts of aggravated identity theft. Defendant used stolen identities to obtain housing and public assistance benefits. Before sentencing, he moved to withdraw his plea and the district court denied the motion. The court concluded that defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary and his post-plea claims contradicted his previous testimony. Defendant's complaints did not present a fair and just reason for withdrawing his plea. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting his motion. View "United States v. Andolini" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted on two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and two counts of abusive sexual contact. On appeal, defendant challenged his convictions and sentence. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of prior sexual assaults against other family members where it was relevant due to the similarity of the sexual abuse; the district court did not abuse its discretion or violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by excluding witnesses' prior sexual-assault allegations; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 192-month sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gilbert Crow Eagle, Jr." on Justia Law