Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute, methamphetamine and marijuana. Defendant subsequently appealed his 240-month sentence, arguing that the district court clearly erred in finding that the drug involved in the conspiracy was "ice" and not a mixture containing methamphetamine. The court found no clear error for the district court to sentence on the basis of "ice" methamphetamine despite the government's failure to test the purity of the seized substance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lugo" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence following a guilty plea to one count of wire fraud. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the use-of-sophisticated-means enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1)(C) and the role-in-the-offense enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(a) based on the facts; the district court did not err in its loss calculation and restitution award; and the district court was fully aware of its ability to grant a downward variance and did not err in declining to do so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sethi" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted aggravated sexual abuse and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction where defendant conceded to commit aggravated sexual abuse and a reasonable juror could have concluded that defendant's conduct constituted a substantial step toward aggravated sexual abuse. The court also held that the district court did not commit plain error by denying defendant's request for a mistrial based on the Government's tiger stripes/leopard spots remark during closing argument. Even if it was plain error, there was no effect on defendant's substantial rights. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Brown, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of attempted sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of the Trafficking Victim Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. 1591 and 1594(a). The district court subsequently granted each defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. The government appealed. The court held that the plain and unambiguous language of sections 1591 and 1594(a) applied to both suppliers and consumers of commercial sex acts. Having thoroughly reviewed the record in each case, the court concluded that each defendant's respective juries reasonably found each of them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempting to engage in child sex trafficking in violation of sections 1591 and 1594(a). Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of acquittal entered by the district court for each defendant and remanded with instructions for the district court to reinstate the jury verdict and proceed with sentencing. View "United States v. Junger" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's order modifying his communication restriction imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(d). Section 3582(d) required a motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons or a United States attorney to invoke the district court's authority to impose a communication restriction after sentencing. The sentencing court could not, upon its own motion, invoke this same authority. Accordingly, the court vacated the March 15, 2010, order and all subsequent orders to the extent that they enforced the restrictions imposed by the March 15, 2010 order. View "United States v. Allmon, Sr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed his conviction and sentence for 19 counts based on stalking and his use of the mails and telephone for threatening and harassing communications. Because the court concluded that "the court in which such charge is pending" was solely the District of South Dakota, the relevant period for the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(c)(1), purposes did not begin to accrue until defendant first appeared there. Consequently, only 66 days elapsed before his trial commenced and therefore, the court could not conclude that the district court erred in rejecting his motion to dismiss under the Act. As for defendant's claims of multiplicity, the court directed the district court to vacate convictions as to Counts 13-17, including the special assessments, and affirmed the remaining convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Grimes" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 188 months imprisonment as an armed career criminal. The court affirmed and held that the evidence supported the jury's rejection of defendant's entrapment defense; the Government's conduct in this case represented an aggressive and persistent investigation, not outrageous conduct that shocked the conscience; the erased tapes at issue did not constitute a due process violation; and defendant's prior convictions, non-residential burglaries, constituted violent felonies. View "United States v. Bugh" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four counts of bank robbery and sentenced on each to concurrent 220 month terms. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. The court affirmed and held that the district court did not err by denying his motion to sever the charges; by admitting evidence of his prior conviction for bank robbery; by entering judgment on insufficient evidence; and by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. View "United States v. Young" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of one count of aiding and abetting the armed robbery of a credit union and one count of obstruction of justice. Defendant appealed his conviction. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of both counts. The court also considered defendant's additional pro se arguments and determined that they were either waived, moot, or without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Akiti" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud and wire fraud. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. The court vacated the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial with respect to the alleged sequestration violation. The court remanded for the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the limited issue of whether the government witness' conversation warranted a new trial, to make supplemental findings of fact, and to reconsider defendant's motion for a new trial in light of any evidence at this hearing. The court retained jurisdiction to address all of defendant's points on appeal after these further district court proceedings. View "United States v. Engelmann" on Justia Law