Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss after pleading guilty to distributing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2)(A) and 2256(8)(C). Defendant transmitted an image to his eleven-year-old half-sister's Facebook page depicting an adult male and an adult female engaged in sexual intercourse where the eleven-year-old's face was superimposed over the woman's face. The court concluded that the government has a compelling interest in protecting innocent minors from the significant harms associated with morphed images and there was no less restrictive means for the government effectively to protect the minor child from the exploitation and psychological harm resulting from the distribution of the morphed image than to prohibit defendant from disseminating it. Accordingly, the court concluded that sections 2252A(a)(2)(A) and 2256(8)(C) are constitutional as applied to defendant's conduct. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and being a felon in possession of ammunition, both in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court concluded that it was undisputed that defendant acquired the firearm and ammunition at separate times and in separate places, thus providing two separate "units of prosecution." Moreover, under plain error review, defendant's multiplicitous argument necessarily failed because the district court sentenced him to a below-guidelines sentence and never mentioned the fact that defendant was convicted of two counts, rather than one. Finally, the court rejected defendant's as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of section 922(g)(1). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Woolsey, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of extortion. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in considering defendant's pre-July 16 conduct to be relevant conduct for sentencing purposes. The court affirmed the term of imprisonment since there was no procedural error and defendant did not allege that the sentence was unreasonable. The court concluded that defendant's conduct prior to the dates listed in the indictment and guilty plea was in preparation for the offense of conviction, rather than part of the offense itself. Therefore, such conduct did not give rise to liability for restitution. The only loss incurred during the dates of conviction was the $100 provided by law enforcement. Accordingly, the court reversed the restitution award and remanded with directions to strike the award from the judgment. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and an order of restitution after pleading guilty to tampering with evidence. The court enforced defendant's waiver of his right to appeal the reasonableness of his custodial sentence. The court concluded that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A, did not apply to defendant's offense. Accordingly, the court vacated the restitution order and remanded for the district court to address defendant's ability to pay and any other issues relevant to an order of restitution under section 3663A. View "United States v. Doering" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the firearm. The court concluded that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion by holding an additional suppression hearing to allow the government to introduce additional evidence before the district court ruled on defendant's motions. Further, the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the firearm obtained during the stop where the seizure of defendant did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the totality of the circumstances gave the officers reasonable suspicion to conclude that a crime of burglary was likely to happen. View "United States v. Hayden" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that deputies used excessive force that resulted in Jimmy Farris' death. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in weighing the interests of justice with due regard to the importance of live testimony and concluding that the circumstances here - the deputy's deployment to Afghanistan precluded him from appearing at trial without extraordinary effort, cost, and other hardship - tipped the balance in favor of admitting the deputy's deposition testimony. Even if the district court abused its discretion in admitting the deputy's deposition testimony, the error would be harmless where plaintiffs were not prejudiced. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. View "McDowell, et al. v. Blankenship, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging, inter alia, excessive use of force by officers and a failure to train or supervise by the county jail administrator. The court concluded that it has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and the collateral-order doctrine to review the district court's denial of qualified immunity; the court declined to review the district court's order denying summary judgment to the county and to the individual defendants in their official capacities; the court concluded that the first use of the taser was reasonable where plaintiff purposefully kicked the officer and was aggressive; as to the second taser strike, a jury could find that plaintiff was nonviolent and an objectively reasonable officer would not use a taser on him as corporal inducement; plaintiff's constitutional right to be free from being tased for non-compliance was clearly established at the time; therefore, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity where the officers violated plaintiff's constitutional right to be free from excessive force; and the county jail administrator was not entitled to qualified immunity on the failure to train or supervise claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smith v. Conway County, Arkansas, et al." on Justia Law

Respondent, in his official capacity as superintendent of the Potosi Correctional Center, moved to vacate the district court's order staying the execution of petitioner. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in granting an indefinite stay of execution where petitioner has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his federal habeas petition. The Missouri courts are the proper forum in the first instance for petitioner's claim of incompetency, under Ford v. Wainwright, to be executed. Accordingly, the court vacated the stay of execution. View "Middleton v. Roper" on Justia Law

Respondent, in his official capacity as superintendent of the Potosi Correctional Center, moved to vacate the district court's order staying the execution of petitioner. Petitioner filed a "second-in-time federal habeas corpus petition and supplemental petition to first habeas corpus application," alleging that the state does not provide adequate procedures by which he could raise a claim that he is mentally incompetent to be executed under the Eighth Amendment as interpreted in Ford v. Wainwright. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by staying petitioner's execution for the purpose of holding a hearing on a Ford claim that was never presented to the Missouri state courts. Accordingly, the court vacated the stay of execution. View "Middleton v. Roper" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for knowingly trafficking in contraband cigarettes in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2342(a). The court concluded that the government failed to prove a knowing violation of section 2342(a); there was sufficient evidence that defendant knowingly received the packages but not that she knowingly received "contraband cigarettes" hidden inside the packages; and the Double Jeopardy Clause required entry of judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Nguyen" on Justia Law