Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of traveling with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct and was sentenced to 144 months' imprisonment followed by a lifetime of supervised release. Defendant appealed the length of his sentence as substantively unreasonable and the special conditions of his release. The court held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, varied upward from the Guidelines range due to the egregiousness of defendants conduct, and considered the potential for unwarranted sentencing disparities and the desire to protect the public. The court also held that the district court did not commit plain error by prohibiting defendant from consuming alcohol where alcohol was used in the instant offense as part of the grooming process. The court further held that the district court did not plainly err in prohibiting defendant from possessing sexually explicit materials. Accordingly, the sentence and the special conditions were affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and sentenced to 300 months imprisonment. Defendant filed a motion in the district court for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on the intervening amendment 706 to the U.S.S.G. which lowered the base offense levels for distribution of cocaine. The court held that amendment 706 was a retroactive amendment and therefore, reversed and remanded the district court's denial of defendant's motion.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation and attempted sexual exploitation of a minor, and two counts of possession and attempted possession of child pornography. Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress and his 480-month term of imprisonment. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress based on the good faith exception, regardless of whether the affidavit at issue was sufficient to establish probable cause. The court also held that defendant's challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence was barred by the appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement. The court further held that defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant pled guilty to knowingly and intentionally distributing five or more grams of actual methamphetamine. Defendant appealed his sentence of 135 months imprisonment. The court held that the district court did not err in applying U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 for obstructing or impeding the administration of justice and in applying U.S.S.G. 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Defendant was convicted of crimes related to his involvement in a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme and was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. Defendant appealed, challenging his conviction and sentence. The court held that defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated when the district court sealed a cooperating witness's United States Marshals Service's Witness Security Program (WITSEC) file, limited defendant's ability to reference the witness by name at a pretrial hearing, prevented defendant from introducing the file into evidence, and prohibited the use of the WITSEC file to impeach the witness. The court also held that the district court properly denied defendant's proffered jury instructions. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to change venue. The court rejected defendant's argument that the district court committed procedural error in sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence.

Defendant was convicted of being a prohibited person in possession of firearms and ammunition. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's evidentiary rulings, her conviction, and her sentence. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's suppression motion where the search warrant application supported a finding of probable cause; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain voice message recordings; the district court committed no error in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. The court also held that because the district court saw sufficient evidence to support by a preponderance of the evidence its finding that defendant enjoyed access to the gun safe and therefore possessed multiple firearms, the court affirmed the district court's application of the sentencing enhancement. The court declined to address defendant's argument that the district court erred in denying a downward departure and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motion for a variance. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

German Robles-Garcia and Jose Rodriquez-Ramos were tried jointly by a jury. Robles was convicted of conspiracy to distribute less than 50 grams of methamphetamine mixture, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine actual, and 5 kilograms or more of cocaine. Robles was also convicted of kidnapping. Rodriquez was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. In addressing Robles' claims on appeal, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and the court did not err in denying Robles' request for an acquittal; the district court did not err in considering a detective's testimony; the district court did not err in applying the U.S.S.G. 3B1.1 enhancement for his leadership role in the kidnapping; the record was devoid of facts to enable the court to evaluate Robles' claims against his attorney; and Robles' sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the crimes he committed. In addressing Rodriquez's claim on appeal, the court held that the district court considered the mitigating and aggravating factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553 but correctly considered only Rodriquez's culpability in determining whether the role reduction was warranted. Accordingly, both Robles' conviction and sentence, as well as Rodriquez's sentence, were affirmed.

A police sergeant arrested plaintiff without a warrant for running a contest which allegedly violated Minnesota gambling laws. The sergeant later obtained a search warrant and seized several items from the house where plaintiff was running the contest. A reporter broadcasted a news story about the contest and plaintiff's arrest on a local CBS television station. Plaintiff subsequently sued the sergeant and the city of Minneapolis under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for civil rights violations for the arrest and search, and the reporter and CBS for defamation. Both sides moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the motion for defendants. The court held that because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any of the sergeant's actions violated a constitutional right, he could not deprive the sergeant of qualified immunity, and thus summary judgment was appropriate. Summary judgment was also proper as to the city because municipalities could not be held liable under Section 1983 where plaintiff had not argued on appeal that any municipal policy or custom led to a deprivation of his constitutional rights. The court also held that plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure and it was not reckless disregard for the truth to conclude that plaintiff could face future incarceration related to the contests. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its substantial discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for spoliation sanctions. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to make a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 371 and one count of making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, in connection with the disappearance and death of her niece. The district court sentenced defendant to sixty months' imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutively, and three years' supervised release. Defendant appealed her sentence. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c) and even if there was error, any error was harmless; there was no procedural error in the district court's decision to vary up to the statutory maximum on each count under U.S.S.G. 5K2.9; the district court did not err in running the two 60 month sentences consecutive to each other; defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable; and the conditions of supervised release were affirmed.

Defendant, an alien, pled guilty to knowingly and unlawfully reentering the United States after being deported. The district court enhanced defendant's sentence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(E) because the court determined that defendant had been convicted of three or more misdemeanor crimes of violence. The court held that the district court properly applied the enhancement where defendant's four assault and battery convictions under Omaha Municipal Code 20-61 qualified as a crime of violence.