Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After illegally reentering the United States for the seventh time, defendant was again charged with and pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2), and 6 U.S.C. 202 and 557. On appeal, defendant argued that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a downward variance in light of United States v. Jimenez-Perez where the lack of fast-track program was not a basis for a departure under U.S.S.G. 5K3.1. Further, defendant did not argue at sentencing for a downward variance on this ground and the district court committed no plain error in failing to comment sua sponte on the issue.

The district court found defendants, husband and wife, guilty of health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud. On appeal, defendants claimed that the district court erred in denying their motion for acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions. The court held that the district court could have inferred that defendants knowingly and willfully executed a scheme to defraud a health care program, and did so in a joint conspiracy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Carolyn M. Louper-Morris and her son, William J. Morris, were convicted of, among other things, conspiracy and fraud charges related to the activities they carried out through their company, CyberStudy101. Louper-Morris raised six issues on appeal: (1) the district court erred by denying her motion to dismiss the indictment because the United States made a material misrepresentation to the grand jury; (2) the district court erred in overruling her objection under Batson v. Kentucky; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions; (4) the United States intimidated one of her witnesses thereby depriving her of the right to present a complete defense; (5) the district court erred by enhancing her base level offense for her role as a leader or organizer under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1; and (6) cumulative trial errors warranted reversal or at least remand. Morris raised six issues on appeal: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the wire and mail fraud statutes exceeded Congress' authority to legislate in violation of the Tenth Amendment; (3) the district court erred by not allowing the jury to view the live website at issue; (4) the district court erred in overruling his objection under Batson; (5) the district court erred in enhancing his base offense level under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1 and 2B1.1(b)(9)(C); and (6) the district court's restitution order improperly included restitution to an entity that was already receiving compensation from a settlement agreement. The court rejected each of defendants' claims and affirmed the judgment.

Defendant plead guilty to illegal reentry after removal and subsequently appealed his 77-month prison sentence as substantively unreasonable. Given defendant's extensive criminal history and weak claim of cultural assimilation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to the bottom of the advisory guidelines range. The court also held that lack of a fast-track program was not a basis for a departure under U.S.S.G. 5K3.1 and the district court committed no plain error on that issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff brought suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, against the DEA seeking unredacted versions of two DEA reports. Plaintiff sought records of the DEA's investigation of him for drug activities. The DEA appealed the district court's order partially granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The court reversed the district court's ruling for disclosure of the "Details" section of the 1990 report at issue and concluded that the redaction was appropriate under exemption 7(D) because there was an implied assurance of confidentiality under that exemption. The court also reversed the district court's ruling related to paragraph 7 of the 2008 report where the withheld information could be used to identify a private individual and triggered privacy concerns.

Plaintiff, an Arkansas inmate, appealed following the district court's disposition of her claims against Sergeant Donavion, the sole remaining defendant in her 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. The court concluded that plaintiff administratively exhausted her constitutional claims arising from the confiscation of her Catholic Bible, rosary beads, and other religious materials during a cell shakedown, and the subsequent failure to return these items. The court also concluded that trialworthy issues existed on these claims. Accordingly, the court reversed as to the claims against Donavion and remanded for further proceedings.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of failing to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2250 and the district court sentenced him to 18 months' imprisonment and five years' supervised release. Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. The court held that, under Reynolds v. United States, defendant had standing to raise his non-delegation claim and the court remanded to the district court to consider that claim on the merits. The court held that defendant's other challenges to the district court's ruling were foreclosed by circuit precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Defendant pleaded guilty to three federal offenses: conspiracy to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana; discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The district court sentenced defendant to 220 months' imprisonment and defendant appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the appeal was moot because there was no effectual relief available to defendant. Defendant disputed only whether the district court should have imposed the federal sentence "to run concurrently to the remainder of the undischarged term of imprisonment." At this point, because Missouri discharged defendant's state sentence, there was no longer an "undischarged term of imprisonment." Accordingly, the court granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal and denied the motion to supplement the record.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 97 months' imprisonment, to be followed by a lifetime of supervised release with special conditions. Defendant appealed his sentence and the special condition. The court held that there was no procedural error in defendant's sentence where the district court adequately considered defendant's arguments for a variance from the guidelines, acknowledged his contention that the sentencing guidelines were excessive, and then granting him "some relief" by sentencing at the bottom of the advisory range. The court also held that the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in ultimately concluding that a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range was appropriate. Finally, the court held that the Internet usage special condition reasonably related to 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and was reasonably necessary to further the purposes of sentencing, including adequate deterrence and protection of the public from future crimes by defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of stolen firearms and was sentenced to 89 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the probation office improperly assessed a criminal history point for three misdemeanor convictions arising out of the same arrest. The court held that the district court properly treated defendant's prior sentences as a single sentence under U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(a)(2), and correctly scored one criminal history point under U.S.S.G. 4A1(c) for a prior uncounseled misdemeanor that resulted in no jail time. Therefore, there was no procedural error in calculating defendant's sentence and the judgment was affirmed.