Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiring to commit drug trafficking offenses. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred in finding that he failed to qualify for safety valve relief under the Sentencing Guidelines and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court found no error in the district court's conclusion that defendant did not qualify for safety valve relief where he failed to meet his burden that he provide complete and truthful information. The court also held that defendant failed to make any convincing showing that the district abused its discretion in sentencing defendant.

Defendant pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to transport cocaine, convert it to crack cocaine, and to distribute over thirty kilograms of cocaine base. Defendant appealed his sentence. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant a minor participant role-in-the-offense reduction under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(b). The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant's marijuana possession conviction was for a separate and distinct offense and in adding one criminal history point for that offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of attempted escape from confinement, kidnapping, and armed criminal action. He appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief on two grounds. The court affirmed the Missouri Court of Appeals' determination that under Missouri law, defendant's trial counsel did not act unreasonably by failing to request the lesser-included offense instruction because defendant was not entitled to such an instruction. Further, even if the failure to give an instruction did constitute a violation of state law, there was no fundamental defect that resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice. The court also held that there was no evidence that the alleged systematic failure of the public defender system affected the performance of defendant's counsel. Further, any error by postconviction appellate counsel would not constitute cause to excuse defendant's procedural default. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order denying the petition.

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of her petition seeking half the proceeds of the sale of stock that was ordered forfeited in her ex-husband's conviction for mail fraud and money laundering in connection with the Thomas Petters Ponzi scheme. The court concluded that petitioner did not allege a legal interest in the stock proceeds sufficient to confer standing, and that, even if she did, her petition failed on the merits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and of two counts of using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. At issue was whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the imposition of two consecutive sentences for the two firearms convictions based on defendant's employment of the same firearm in a single-drug-trafficking offense. The court held that defendant's counsel acted within the range of professional competence when he chose not to object to the district court's application of the settled law. Because counsel's performance was not deficient, defendant's claim of ineffective assistance failed and the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant was found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and assault resulting in a serious bodily injury. The district court ordered defendant to pay restitution to South Dakota's Medicaid program and South Dakota's State Crime Victim Compensation program under the Mandatory Victim's Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A. Defendant appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not err in ordering mandatory restitution because defendant's victim was a victim of a crime covered by the MVRA; the victim suffered a loss in the form of expensive medical treatment; and the victim received compensation for her loss from third parties. Under the MVRA and section 3664(j)(1), the court was required to award restitution directly to those third parties in an amount equal to the amount of compensation and not exceeding the total amount of the victim's loss. The fact that the third parties were agencies of South Dakota did not change the analysis. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor. In the plea agreement, the Government agreed to recommend a sentence at the low end of defendant's advisory sentencing guidelines range. The district court, however, imposed a longer sentence and defendant appealed. The court held that there was no error, much less plain error, because the Government in fact made the recommendation it was obligated to make. Based on the record, there was no indication that, but for the Government's statements, the district court would have imposed a sentence more favorable to defendant. Thus, even if the Government were held to have breached the plea agreement, defendant's breach would fail the plain error test of Rule 52(b). Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court applied U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) to determine a base offense level and found a prior conviction for manslaughter qualified as a "crime of violence." Defendant challenged this determination, arguing that the mens rea for the earlier manslaughter conviction was recklessness and that the offense did qualify as a crime of violence. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court based upon the district court's alternative holding. Even assuming the crime-of-violence determination involved error, any such error was harmless in light of the district court's alternative rationale involving a permissible variance.

Defendant pled guilty to one count of structuring financial transactions and was sentenced to thirty months in prison. On appeal, defendant challenged the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The court held that the district court did not commit any procedural error in sentencing defendant and that court adequately explained the sentence it imposed and its reasons for denying both a downward departure and a variance. The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court sentenced him at the bottom of the Guidelines range, after taking into account various factors such as his military service, health, age, and role in the crime. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress after entering a conditional plea of guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances plainly supported the district court's determination that seizure of the three computers at issue was not constitutionally unreasonable, based on defendant's father's consent, the officers' probable cause to believe the computers contained evidence of child pornography offenses, and their intent to obtain a search warrant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.