Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was indicted for unlawfully attempting to remove his children from the United States. On appeal, defendant challenged his commitment on grounds that the district court did not provide him with a legal, constitutionally adequate competency hearing under 18 U.S.C. 4241(c). As a preliminary matter, the court held that defendant's appeal was not moot. However, because defendant's only argument on appeal was that the hearing was inadequate, his appeal was without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant Swift and Moya were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute meth. Swift argued that the district court erred in admitting evidence from a search warrant of his residence and both defendants asserted that there was insufficient evidence to convict them. The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress where reliance on the search warrant was objectively reasonable and there was no evidence the officer acted in bad faith. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants for the crimes for which they were charged.

Defendant was sentenced to 110 months' imprisonment for distribution of cocaine base and subsequently filed a motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding that it lacked authority to reduce his sentence. The court held that neither Freeman v. United States nor United States v. Rivera addressed the court's primary reason for denying defendant's section 3582(c) motion. The court rejected defendant's argument that the Sentencing Commission exceeded its statutory authority by enacting Amendment 759 to U.S.S.G. 1B1.10 or that Amendment 759 violated the separation-of-powers doctrine. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, simultaneously resulting in a revocation of his supervised release from a previous conviction. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction and sentences on various grounds. The court held that a direct-in-person identification of a car as having just been involved in a crime was sufficient to justify a Terry stop; the evidence at trial was sufficient to convict defendant; there was no plain error in admitting an officer's testimony; defendant's escape conviction was properly considered an Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), predicate offense; defendant's violent assault convictions constituted violent felonies; and the imposition of consecutive sentences was not an abuse of discretion.

Defendant, convicted of a drug offense and money laundering, appealed his conviction and sentence. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the crimes for which he was charged; the district court did not err in ruling that defendant did not suffer an unconstitutional pre-indictment delay; the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking a defense witness' testimony; and the district court did not err in refusing defendant's proposed spoliation instruction. The court rejected defendant's proposition that the district court's failure to give his proposed multiple conspiracies instruction required a new trial. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting Juror No. 1's assurance and refusing defendant's request to use an alternate. Finally, the court held that any error in failing to apply the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, retroactively was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for federal habeas corpus relief from his state convictions on a number of drug-related charges. The court held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to preserve the suppression issue and plaintiff failed to show that a motion to suppress would have been meritorious under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the court did not find that the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision that plaintiff was not prejudiced by any deficient performance on the part of his counsel to be contrary to, or involving an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law or to have rested on an unreasonable interpretation of the evidence.

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed his sentence. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court's rulings were procedural guidelines errors. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the same course of conduct for defendant's offense of conviction included his closely interrelated drug trafficking and continuing illegal possession of firearms. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, as well as the district court's denial of his motion for funds to conduct a mental examination. The court rejected petitioner's Batson claims and violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause claims. The court also denied petitioner's motion for funds to conduct a mental examination where petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing that a mental examination was reasonably necessary. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff, a Missouri inmate, moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his appeal of the district court's dismissal of his civil rights action before service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that plaintiff was ineligible under the "three strikes" provision in section 1915(g) to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and denied the motion.

Defendant pled guilty to two counts of wire fraud in connection with a mortgage fraud scheme. At sentencing, the district court calculated an advisory sentencing guidelines range of thirty-three to forty-one months' imprisonment based on a total offense level of twenty and a criminal history category of I. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of thirty-three months' imprisonment, and Defendant appealed the sentence. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to thirty-three months' imprisonment, as the sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not commit significant procedural error.