Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to distribution of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine and subsequently appealed his sentence, arguing that the government breached his plea agreement at the sentencing. The court concluded that the government's presentation of evidence supporting the PSR's quantity breached the plea agreement and the district court plainly erred in allowing the government to introduce the evidence. Because the government breached the plea agreement, the judgment must be vacated and the case remanded.

Defendant was found guilty of conspiring to commit bank fraud, committing bank fraud, and making a false statement to a financial institution. On appeal, the Government challenged the district court's decisions to use defendant's gain, instead of the actual or intended loss, for purposes of calculating the advisory sentencing guidelines range and to not order plaintiff to pay restitution. The court affirmed the district court's loss analysis because it could not reasonably determine the value of the outstanding collateral, as it applied to actual and intended loss. Given the district court's concerns about the complexity of determining the extent of loss properly attributable to defendant's scheme, the court could not say that the district court abused its discretion by declining to order restitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

After a joint trial, a jury convicted defendant Shakur of various drug offenses and convicted Defendant Stockman of conspiracy to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. On appeal, Shakur argued that the district court erred in denying his mid-trial motion for appointment of new counsel and in allowing him to proceed pro se at sentencing. He further contended in a separate appeal that the court exceeded its authority by entering a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture nearly three months after entering Judgment in his criminal case. Stockman argued insufficient evidence to support his conviction, error in admitting $30,000 cash officers seized from his home, and procedural error in determining drug quantity resulting in an unreasonable sentence. The court held that there could be no criminal forfeiture in this case where the district court was without power to enter the order. Accordingly, the court reversed the forfeiture order and otherwise affirmed the judgments.

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conveying false information about bombing a commercial aircraft in violation of 18 U.S.C. 35(b) and conveying a threat and false information in interstate commerce about the destruction of life and property by explosives under 18 U.S.C. 844(e). The court held that sections 844(e) and 35(b) legitimately criminalized true threats and not protected expressive activity. Accordingly, the statutes under which defendant was convicted were constitutional. The court also held that, taken together, the jury instructions accurately informed the jury of the mental states required for convictions under the offenses charged. The court further held that there was no double jeopardy violation; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; and the district court did not err in sentencing defendant as a career offender.

Patients, civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against DHS officials and DOC officials, alleging that various MSOP policies and practices relating to Patients' conditions of confinement were unconstitutional. The district court granted summary judgment to DHS officials and DOC officials on all of Patients' claims and Patients appealed, raising ten assertions of error. The court rejected Patients' claims and affirmed the summary judgment.

Plaintiff sued St. Louis County and three of its police officers - Lane Hollandsworth, Stephen Deen, Sr., and Jack Webb - under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights by causing his wrongful conviction for rape and delaying his exoneration. After dismissing the County from the case, the district court granted summary judgment to the individual defendants, dismissing all claims with prejudice. The court affirmed, holding that, even assuming Hollandsworth caused some degree of suggestiveness in the photo lineup, it did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights; there was no material issue of fact whether Hollandsworth knew that the December 4, 1982, incident was exculpatory evidence and tried to suppress the evidence; and therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Hollandsworth. The court also held that Deen did not violate defendant's due process rights by conducting an impermissibly suggestive live lineup. Further, the court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Webb where there was no evidence in the record that Webb signed a false affidavit. Finally, the district court did not err in denying the motion for leave on the basis of futility and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to alter or amend its judgment.

Defendants appealed their criminal offenses connected to illegal gambling, drug trafficking, firearms, and marriage fraud. Defendants raised several additional issues on appeal. The court affirmed on all issues except for Defendant Thompson's double jeopardy claim. On that issue, the court found a double jeopardy violation and reversed Thompson's charge on count five in case number 11-2604, of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Defendants appealed their convictions and sentences stemming from a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. The court held that Defendant Young's constitutional challenges to his sentence were without merit where the district court properly considered the sentencing guidelines, specifically noting that the sentencing guidelines were an important but not controlling factor. The court held that the district court's reliance on trial testimony to find Defendant Lewis responsible for the additional amounts of cocaine was not clearly erroneous and the drug quantity was supported by sufficient evidence. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Defendant Lewis was a full participant in the conspiracy and in denying his request for a minor-role reduction. Finally, the district court did not clearly err in imposing a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) by finding that another participant's possession of a firearm was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Lewis and that it was reasonably foreseeable that the firearm was in furtherance of the conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly transmitting in interstate commerce, via the Internet, a communication containing a threat to injure the person of another. The district court sentenced defendant to 60 months' imprisonment, applying a vulnerable victim enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3A1.1(b)(1) and varying upwards under 18 U.S.C. 3533(a) after considering defendant's culpability in the alleged murder of his wife. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court held that it need not determine whether the district court procedurally erred in applying the vulnerable-victim enhancement because any such error would be harmless; the district court did not err in finding that defendant murdered his missing wife and that the alleged murder was inextricably intertwined with the threatening communication at issue; the district court did not err in varying upward based on a finding that defendant murdered his wife; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable.

Petitioner, convicted of capital felony murder in the course of a robbery and sentenced to death, petitioned for habeas relief, asserting actual innocence. The court found no clear error in the district court's determination that the expert testimony at issue was not "new" evidence; the district court did not err in its reliability and credibility assessments; there was no error in the district court's predictive analysis of how actual jurors would view the totality of the evidence regarding actual innocence; and even assuming error, there was no prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.