Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; the district court adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not commit procedural error; and the sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against police officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging false arrest and retaliation. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to preserve the issue of whether the district court erred when it vacated the partial grant of summary judgment on the issue of liability in the false arrest claim; whether plaintiff made a Rule 50(a) motion is moot because they failed to preserve the issue by making a post-judgment Rule 50(b) motion; and the district court did not abuse its consideration discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hoffmeyer, et al. v. Porter, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the officer who restrained him while executing a search warrant. Even assuming without deciding that the officer recklessly disregarded the misleading effect that omitting the facts at issue would have on the judge's probable cause determination, the officer was still entitled to qualified immunity. The court agreed with the district court that the evidence submitted to the judge would have been sufficient to support a probable cause finding even if the officer's oral affidavit had included the omitted facts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officer. View "Block v. Dupic" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his revocation of supervised release and sentence after pleading guilty to larceny in Indian country. Defendant was resentenced to a term of fifteen months' imprisonment for the original larceny offense. The court concluded that the district court imposed a term within the maximum authorized by law, two years' imprisonment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Decoteau" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to distributing five grams or more of methamphetamine. The court concluded that the sentence was reasonable where the district court had wide latitude to consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and imposed a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range. The court also concluded that no error by trial counsel was apparent on the current record and there appeared to be no plain miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Samaniego-Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release after he beat up his girlfriend. The district court concluded that defendant committed three violations of Iowa law: false imprisonment, domestic abuse assault, and first-degree harassment. The court concluded that the physical evidence strongly corroborated the girlfriend's version of events and the district court was entitled to find her credible. The court rejected defendant's argument to the extent that an absence of state charges demonstrated the falsity of the girlfriend's position where the absence of a prosecution did not logically refute the district court's factual finding that an offense occurred in violation of the conditions of supervised release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Frosch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's imposition of a revocation sentence based on her numerous prior violations. The court held that as a statutory and procedural matter, a revocation sentence may not be based on disputed, unproven allegations in the probation officer's reports. In this instance, however, it was clear from the record that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors listed in section 3583(e) and based defendant's sentence solely on undisputed facts. Although the district court could have offered a more detailed and precise explanation of the reference to the "reasons" in the adjustment report, or omitted the reference, the court detected no procedural error under Gall v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the revocation sentence. View "United States v. Richey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against his parole officer, alleging that the officer falsely reported that plaintiff failed to report to see him as required by the terms of plaintiff's parole. The court concluded that the district court correctly followed circuit precedent in dismissing plaintiff's claim in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey and this court's application of Heck in Entzi v. Redmann. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court denied plaintiff's motion for service of the appeal as moot. View "Newmy, Sr. v. Johnson, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree felony murder, challenged the district court's dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that, when the state post-conviction was no longer pending, petitioner waited another 363 days to file her federal petition for federal habeas corpus, making her current habeas petition untimely. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for habeas corpus relief. View "Dixon v. Wachtendorf" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to receipt of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court properly applied the cross reference to U.S.S.G. 2G2.1 and its related sentencing enhancements based on defendant's admission that he photographed himself having sexual intercourse with his eleven year old nephew; the district court did not clearly err in finding that the victim had been twelve years of age at the time of the sexual offense so as to apply the section 2G2.1(b)(1)(A) enhancement; and the district court reasonably applied the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in sentencing defendant to the guidelines range of twenty years imprisonment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Zayas" on Justia Law