Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that defendant and his counsel were not entitled to advance notice before the district court imposed a sentence outside his advisory-Guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Omoware" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence after pleading guilty to one count of making a false statement to the government in connection with her receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits from the SSA. The court concluded that the district court properly determined that it could calculate defendant's offense level using intended rather than actual loss. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Killen" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possessing and distributing child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not misapply Rule 414 in admitting into evidence defendant's prior conviction for trafficking in child pornography; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for mistrial where defendant failed to show that there were premature jury deliberations; and the district court did not err in denying a motion for a new trial where none of the evidence defendant described as "newly discovered" was unknown or unavailable to the defense at the time of trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Axsom, II" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for charges related to his coercion of several women to travel interstate to perform commercial sex acts for defendant's pecuniary gain. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions for conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, sex trafficking, and coercion and enticement to travel in interstate commerce for prostitution; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant defendant's motion for new trial based on the weight of the evidence; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Rule 403 evidence regarding the victim's background to demonstrate that they were vulnerable victims because the evidence was probative and not unfairly prejudicial; and defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of five counts of subscribing to false tax returns and one count of endeavoring to obstruct the administration of the internal revenue laws. The court concluded that a rational jury could convict defendant of subscribing to a false return even if he also under-reported his expenses and deductions. The court also concluded that a rational jury could find that defendant's actions were an attempt to obstruct or impede the IRS's administration of the tax code so that he could secure a financial gain. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Mathews" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress after pleading guilty to distributing and possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and to aiding and abetting that offense. A state trooper pulled over behind defendant's broken-down car and initially approached him to offer assistance. The court concluded that a reasonable person in defendant's position would have understood that a state trooper had legitimate reasons to monitor the situation without seizing the motorist; once defendant identified himself as the driver and admitted that he did not have a driver's license, the trooper had probable cause to issue defendant a citation for a traffic violation and was thus entitled to detain defendant; the trooper had reasonable, articulable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory stop, including a dog sniff, where, among other things, defendant was unable to identify his passengers and knew one of them only as "Homie," and the trooper was unable to match the name and date of birth that defendant provided to the law enforcement database; once this reasonable suspicion was developed, the trooper did not effect an unreasonable seizure by detaining defendant until another officer arrived with the drug-detection dog; and because defendant's hour-long detention before the dog-sniff was due to the remote location, not any lack of diligence or unnecessary delay by law enforcement, the court concluded that it was reasonable under the circumstances. The district court did not violate defendant's rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by considering records of the drug-detection dog's field performance in camera without disclosing the records to him where evidence of the dog's training and certification was sufficient to establish the dog's reliability and thereby demonstrate probable cause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Salgado" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief. Assuming without deciding that Cuyler v. Sullivan applied to conflict of interest not arising out of multiple representation, the court held that petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief where trial counsel's conflict of interest did not adversely affect his performance. Petitioner also failed to demonstrate that appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to press arguments outside the scope of remand. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Williams v. Ludwick" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that the Government did not breach the plea agreement by introducing additional evidence to establish defendant's role under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(a) because the plea agreement contained no provision limiting the scope of relevant conduct or defining defendant's role in the offense and because the Government unequivocally stood by its stipulation to a base offense level of 36. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Noriega" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to possessing marijuana with intent to distribute and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during a warrant search of his apartment. The court concluded that the exclusionary rule did not apply to preclude use of the evidence in the search warrant application where the officers reasonably relied on binding circuit precedent in conducting a dog sniff outside the door of the apartment at issue. Therefore, the warrant was valid and defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her convictions stemming from a robbery of a mini mart. The court concluded that the district court did not err in instructing the jury on her affirmative defense of coercion or duress where she herself requested the instruction. Further, this was not an exceptional case warranting review of defendant's ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal. Such claims would more appropriately be raised in a collateral challenge to defendant's conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Mathison" on Justia Law