Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed from the district court's order adopting the findings and supplemental findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge granting defendants' motions to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a wiretap. The court affirmed the district court's suppression order where, given the congressional intent to strictly limit the use of this electronic interception, failing to include the name of the authorizing official, and failing to include the documents that could have easily established confirmation or proof of such authorization, was not a "minor," nor merely technical defect. The court further held that, in regards to the Leon good faith exception, no wiretap applicant could, in good faith, rely upon a court order authorizing the wiretap when the applicant failed to comply with the edicts of the federal wiretap statute in procuring the order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of pseudoephedrine, knowingly and having reasonable cause to believe it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred by failing to recognize or consider its authority to depart downward from the advisory guideline range and that the district court failed to consider the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparity, as well as imposed an unreasonable sentence. Because the court recognized its authority to depart and defendant made no assertion that the district court acted with unconstitutional motive, the court's implicit denial of defendant's motion was unreviewable. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments, holding that there was no procedural error and the sentence was substantively reasonable.

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine. The court held that the search warrant application in this case supported a finding of probable cause; defendant's statement to the officers that he would take responsibility for the methamphetamine and gun found in his garage was voluntary; and therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. The court also held that the district court did not err in declining to permit defendant to present evidence of his prior acquittals; there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict and that the district court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial because the evidence of the January 12, 2010 drug transaction was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); and the district court did not err in enhancing defendant's sentence for obstruction of justice or in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.

After defendant escaped from prison, defendant plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Nonetheless, a jury convicted defendant of escape and the district court sentenced him to 30 months imprisonment. Defendant appealed, claiming that his due process rights were violated because the single psychiatric evaluation was insufficient and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that, pursuant to Ake v. Oklahoma, defendant had not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for a second psychiatric evaluation or that it violated his substantial rights. The court also held that plaintiff's complaints about the district court's appointment of a forensic psychologist was without merit and that defendant's claims of ineffective assistance could only be brought on collateral review.

Defendant was found guilty of witness tampering when she confronted the husband of a cooperating witness in a federal criminal case against three of defendant's children. Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence. After weighing the factors and looking to the totality of the circumstances, the court agreed with the district court that a reasonable person in defendant's position would have felt free to end the interview with the police, defendant was not in custody during the interview at issue, and Miranda warnings were not required. Because the district court's view of the nature of defendant's remarks was a reasonable one, the eight-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2J1.2(b)(1) was appropriate.

After failing to appear at his revocation hearing, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of court. On appeal, defendant argued that the petition for contempt should have been dismissed and, alternatively, that the sentence he received was unreasonable. The court held that defendant waived his statute of limitations defense by entering an unconditional guilty plea. Moreover, the one-year statute of limitations was inapplicable. Because this petition was based on defendant's failure to appear at a revocation hearing that arose from his earlier bank robbery and firearm convictions, the "underlying offense" was the bank robbery, not the supervised release violation. Therefore, the district court did not procedurally err by identifying bank robbery as defendant's underlying offense and applying the enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2J1.6(b)(2). Given the evidence before the district court at sentencing, it did not abuse its discretion by imposing a one-year sentence to run consecutive to the two-year sentence for his supervised release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of one count of attempted sex trafficking of a minor and one count of coercing and enticing a minor to commit a sexual act. Defendant subsequently appealed. The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to give the entrapment instruction where the evidence showed that defendant was predisposed to commit the crime; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the challenged Rule 404(b) evidence, email messages, because it was relevant to the issue at trial; and defendant waived any challenge to the dismissal of Juror No. 11. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of one count of knowingly possessing child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged two special conditions of supervision. The court held that the district court imposed the two conditions after individualized analysis of defendant, emphasizing its authority to modify them under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the conditions. To the extent that the conditions restricted defendant's parent-child relationship, the court agreed that the whole record supported the conditions, in light of the district court's finding of no effect on defendant's own children and recognition of its authority to modify the conditions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of "assault resulting in serious bodily injury." On appeal, defendant raised issues related to the sufficiency of the evidence; the district court's application of U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice and U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(b) in light of her minor participation in the offense; and the substantive reasonableness of defendant's below-Guidelines sentence. The court rejected defendant's arguments and held that the district court did not commit any error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. On appeal, defendant appealed the district court's denial of his request for safety valve relief. The court affirmed the judgment where defendant worked with - and withheld the identifies of - downstream co-conspirators.