Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of children. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress statements and physical evidence obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress because of the inevitable discovery doctrine. Because the court found that the evidence was admissible pursuant to that doctrine, defendant's constitutional violation arguments were moot and the court need not consider them on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, as well as the denial of his motion for a new trial. The court held that defendant's claim that the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment resulted in a double jeopardy violation was without merit where the prosecution of a federal offense after the prosecution of a state offense arising out of the same acts did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause; the district court acted within its discretion in limiting cross-examination of the officer at issue; the admission of defendant's prior conviction for possession of a machine gun was not an abuse of discretion; a reasonable jury could conclude that the evidence proved that defendant knowingly possessed the firearm; there was no error in applying the enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(c); defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable and constitutional; and the district court determined that the newly discovered joint memorandum did not warrant a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of receiving child pornography and subsequently challenged his term of imprisonment, the imposition of a fine, and two special conditions of his supervised release. The court held that the sentence imposed was not unreasonable; there was no clear error in the district court's conclusion that defendant could pay the minimum fine recommended by the sentencing guidelines; and the special condition on the use of the Internet did not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary to protect the public and to deter criminal activity in light of the record. The court remanded with instructions to amend the written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement of special condition one.

Defendant pled guilty to two counts of possession of child pornography. Defendant appealed his sentence. The court held that, even if the court assumed that the district court erred by not discussing defendant's argument regarding the child pornography guidelines, defendant had not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a lower sentence but for the alleged error; the district court did not fail to adequately explain its reasoning for determining the sentence; defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered not only the nature of the offense but also defendant's characteristics weighing in favor of a more lenient sentence; and there was no error in imposing the internet restriction where defendant could still access the internet with the permission of a probation officer. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence.

Defendant pleaded guilty to six counts of assaulting a federal employee and one count of possessing an unregistered firearm. Defendant appealed his sentence. The court held that the district court's procedural error when it applied a two-level enhancement for possession of a destructive device pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(3)(B) was harmless; the district court committed no procedural error when it applied the Chapter 2A grouping rules; any alleged error in the district court's failure to calculate a departure before varying was harmless; and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable because the district court adequately explained its reasoning and properly weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors.

Defendant was convicted of stockpiling, retaining, and possessing a chemical weapon - potassium cyanide - in violation of 18 U.S.C. 229(a)(1) and 229A(a)(1). Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. The court held that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; the district court did not err by denying application of the psychotherapist-patient testimonial privilege in regards to the physician's assistant; the court did not adopt the "dangerous patient" exception to the federal psychotherapist-patient testimonial privilege; and defendant could not have knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights to assert the psychotherapist-patient privilege which rendered the government's waiver argument meritless. The court held, however, that the district court's erroneous admission of the treating psychiatrist's testimony was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of receipt and possession of materials involving the sexual exploitation of minors. Defendant subsequently appealed. The court held that the record supported the district court's decision declining to suppress the evidence and the record showed that defendant, without hesitation, answered the questions relating to the materials in his computer; the district court did not err in admitting to agents' testimonies; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony regarding the interstate commerce element of saved images and videos on computer hard drives. The court held, however, that the district court failed to properly instruct the jury and violated defendant's Fifth Amendment rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Therefore, the court determined it proper to have the district court vacate one of defendant's convictions.

Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Defendant sought a two-level reduction in his offense level, claiming he was eligible for safety-valve relief pursuant to U.S.S.G. 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(1)-(5). The district court denied defendant safety-valve relief, relying in error on the court's prior decision in United States v. Webb, which had been trumped by Amendment 709 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that the district court committed procedural error in failing to consider the amended section 4A1.2 when it determined defendant's criminal history points. Accordingly, the court reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. On appeal, he challenged the district court's denial of a motion to suppress the evidence. The court held that the police had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant and that the police did not exceed the permissible bounds of an investigative stop in handcuffing defendant and placing him in the patrol car. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. On appeal, defendant challenged the four-level enhancement the district court applied under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6) and the special condition relating to alcohol. The court held that it was not clear error for the district court to conclude that defendant exhibited specific intent to inflict serious injury and to apply the enhancement. The court also held that the combination of substance abuse and mental health histories appearing in defendant's record were sufficient to justify the district court's imposition of a condition prohibiting the use of alcohol.