Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of the sexual exploitation of a minor and attempting to sexually exploit a minor, as well as possession of materials involving the exploitation of a minor. Defendant appealed his convictions, principally arguing that his conviction on Count Two must be set aside because the jury might have convicted him for producing the still images that were at issue in Count One. Because the district court already had ruled that there was insufficient evidence to show that defendant produced the still images, defendant asserted that the district court erred by failing to ensure that the jury did not consider those images when deliberating Count Two. The court held that defendant's arguments were not raised in the district court and the court concluded that there was no plain error. Even assuming the instructions did not inform the jury to exclude the still images from consideration when deciding Count Two, that alleged shortcoming in the instructions was not a basis to set aside the conviction. The court disposed of defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boyle" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the judgment of the district court, arguing that the evidence of possession was insufficient to convict him. The court held that the evidence at trial was more than sufficient to support the jury's verdict and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gray" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to assaulting a federal officer and was sentenced to 60 months' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by applying a four level increase to his offense level for use of a "dangerous weapon," pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2A2.2(b)(2)(B). The court held that the record in this case was sufficient to demonstrate that any error in calculating the advisory guideline range did not substantially influence the sentence. The court was also satisfied that the district court articulated specific reasons that were sufficient to justify imposing the sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. LaRoche" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration, arguing that his counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Because petitioner could not demonstrate prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, he was not entitled to relief. View "Abraham v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered in a bag near where he was arrested by officers executing a parole violation arrest warrant. The court held that the district court's finding, that the officers could reasonably conclude that a third party, the tenant of the dwelling, voluntarily consented to them going inside and later proceeding upstairs to defendant's bedroom, was not clearly erroneous. Moreover, the court concluded that the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment even if they did not have the tenant's consent where the arrest warrant gave the limited authority to proceed to that portion of the dwelling where there was reason to believe defendant would be found. View "United States v. Collins" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four counts of wire fraud based on fraudulent money transfers he made in connection with his leasing business. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving the jury instructions in this case; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a special verdict form; the district court did not clearly err in calculating the loss from defendant's scheme or abuse its discretion in ordering restitution; and the district court did not plainly err in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Rice" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle. Defendant also appealed his armed career criminal sentence enhancement. The court held that the district court did not err in overruling defendant's motion to suppress on the basis of lack of probable cause to stop him; there was reasonable suspicion to stop defendant; even if there was no reasonable suspicion, such short detentions were de minimus intrusions; the officer was not required to give Miranda warnings before questioning defendant; search of the motor home was conducted with probable cause and reasonable; and the district court did not err in applying the sentencing enhancement. View "United States v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry after removal following an aggravated felony conviction. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court held that defense counsel's passing reference to a four-level departure that would be available in Fast-Track districts did not require the district court to acknowledge, sua sponte, that it would have discretion to take this factor into account in determining whether defendant's request for an even greater downward variance on other grounds. Nor did this passing reference take into account that U.S.S.G. 5K3.1 departures in Fast-Track districts must be made upon motion by the government, a motion that was made only if the defendant met eligibility and other requirements prescribed by the Attorney General. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Longarica" on Justia Law

Cousins Mathew Livers and Nicholas Sampson were arrested and jailed awaiting trial for two murders after Livers confessed to the murders and implicated Sampson as an accomplice. Later, the charges against Livers and Sampson were dropped. They separately sued individual officials and municipal entities involved in the investigation under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging numerous constitutional violations. Several of the individual defendants appealed from the district court's denials of their motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and the appeals have been consolidated. The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity in regard to Livers' and Sampsons' claims against the Cass appellants and the NSP appellants alleging those appellants fabricated evidence, caused them to be arrested without probable cause, and conspired to violate their civil rights. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Livers claim that the Cass appellants and NSP appellants coerced Livers' confession. The court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Livers' and Sampsons' claims based on the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the alleged failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. The court also reversed the denial of qualified immunity for Sheriff Dunning on all claims and to all appellants on Livers' claims based upon appellants' alleged failure to intervene. View "Livers v. Schenck" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of ten counts of wire fraud and three counts of other fraud-related crimes. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's evidentiary rulings, as well as his sentence of 125 months' imprisonment. The court held that the district court properly admitted defendant's income tax preparer's testimony because the income tax preparer, although he was an attorney, did not provide legal advice to defendant and there was no attorney-client relationship. The court held that there was no plain error in admitting the expert testimony of a bank officer regarding specific loans brokered by defendant. Finally, the court held that the sentence was substantively reasonable and affirmed the restitution order. View "United States v. Spencer" on Justia Law