Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and attempt to posses with intent to distribute cocaine, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant appealed both his convictions and his sentence. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment for insufficient evidence where information in the indictment provided defendant with fair notice of the charges against him. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motions for a bill of particulars where the government's disclosures were more than sufficient to enable him to understand the nature of the charges, prepare a defense, and avoid unfair surprise. Moreover, defendant failed to describe any instance in which he was actually surprised at trial or any actual prejudice from the denial of his motions. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to sever two counts where there was no actual prejudice nor any abuse of discretion. The court further held that there was sufficient evidence to connect defendant to the conspiracy and to prove that he took a substantial step towards acquiring 20 kilos of cocaine. The court finally held that the district court did not err in finding that defendant could not challenge his prior convictions; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and the district court did not err in failing to conduct an in camera review of the PSRs of cooperating government witnesses because neither party suggested such review.

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States after deportation and the district court applied a twelve-level specific offense characteristic to defendant's advisory sentencing guideline range pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(B), sentencing him to 30 months imprisonment. Defendant appealed his sentence. The court held that the Report-Indeterminate Sentence was a reliable and accurate judicial record on which a court could rely. The court also held that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement where a precisely drawn charging document established that the basis for defendant's prior conviction was possession of heroin for sale, undisputedly a drug trafficking offense under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(B). The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant within the guideline range and where the district court considered all necessary factors.

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and was sentenced to 48 months' imprisonment followed by three years' supervised release. At issue was whether the district court erred in denying defendant's motion to exclude certain evidence at trial and in calculating the applicable guidelines range at sentencing. The court held that because defendant had an opportunity to effectively cross-exam both officers regarding their testimony that they observed a photo of a handgun on defendant's cell phone and a handgun holster on his person, the admission into evidence of that testimony did not offend the Confrontation Clause. The court also held that, in light of the evidence against defendant, the court was convinced that any error in admitting the challenged portions of a certain videotape would have been harmless. The court affirmed the district court's finding that the penitentiary packet records were admissible as self-authenticating public records. The court finally held that the district court did not err in assessing one criminal history point for defendant's Oklahoma conviction for possessing a firearm while committing a felony under U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(e) where possession of a firearm while committing a drug trafficking offense was similar, in kind as well as degree of risk posed, to the offenses listed in U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a)(2). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

The United States brought this civil action under 26 U.S.C. 7408 to enjoin defendant from promoting several fraudulent tax schemes. After a court trial, the district court permanently enjoined defendant from promoting his schemes, ordered him to advise the IRS of any tax arrangements or business entities formed at his discretion, and required him to provide a copy of its order to his clients. On appeal, defendant argued that the injunction was not supported by adequate factual findings and legal conclusions, and that it was overbroad, an impermissible delegation of Article III power, and an unconstitutional prior restraint. The court rejected defendant's hypertechnical criticisms of the district court's order where section 6700 was a linguistically complex and intricate statute and where the district court need not include the entire statutory language in each of its findings and conclusions. Therefore, the court held that the district court's exhaustive order more than satisfied each of the requirements in section 6700 and affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to a term of imprisonment not to exceed 50 years. At issue was whether defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus was time-barred. The court affirmed the district court's finding that the prison library at Anamosa contained copies of the AEDPA limitations provisions. The court also held that the availability of the limitations provision in the library, in addition to the availability of contract attorneys, provided defendant with the level of assistance necessary to satisfy the constitutional requirement of providing meaningful access to the courts. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment that defendant's petition was time-barred absent a state-created impediment.

Defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting a bank robbery and sentenced to 220 months imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, that the district court erred in failing to dismiss a potentially biased juror, that the district court procedurally erred in imposing his sentence, and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court held that, in light of the overwhelming evidence, the government provided more than sufficient evidence that defendant affirmatively participated in the bank robbery. The court also held that defendant's claim that the district court committed reversible error by failing to sua sponte dismiss the prospective juror was without merit because the venireman did not sit on the jury, neither defendant's statutory right to exercise peremptory challenges, nor any constitutional right was violated. The court further held that the sentencing transcript reflected that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and adequately explained the basis of defendant's sentence; the record did not support defendant's assertions that the district court erred by failing to explain its rationale for the disparity between his and co-defendant's sentence; there was no procedural error in the district court's refusal to grant a downward departure; and defendant's claim that the district court imposed an unreasonably lengthy sentence was rejected. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute in excess of 1,000 kilograms of marijuana and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant claimed that the district court committed numerous sentencing errors. The court held that the presentation of "Anders issues" within a merits brief was inconsistent with the process established in Anders v. California. The court held, nevertheless, that defendant's appeal waiver was enforceable and therefore, barred the court's consideration of his attack on the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The court also held that the district court did not commit clear error when it increased defendant's criminal history category because of his 1997 conviction for two counts of possession of a controlled substance in Missouri state court. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's sentence.

Defendant was convicted of bank robbery and was sentenced to 168 months imprisonment. Defendant raised several issues on appeal. The court held that the deputy's questioning of defendant was consensual and therefore, did not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny; the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that defendant and his companion had been involved in a bank robbery and therefore, the officer did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by seizing him and placing him in the back of his cruiser; and defendant's remaining evidentiary claims were rejected. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and denied his pending motion to strike as moot.

Defendant was convicted of interfering with interstate commerce by robbing an armored car and using, carrying, brandishing, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to that robbery. Defendant appealed his convictions on several grounds. The court held that even if the court erred by barring defendant's attempt to impeach a certain witness's testimony by cross-examining her about her alleged involvement in a 2007 fraudulent insurance claim for vandalism, any such error did not affect defendant's substantial rights where such an inquiry would have impeached defendant's testimony because he was likewise involved in the alleged fraud. The court also held that, even if defendant's testimony had been totally undermined, the other evidence linking defendant to the robbery was overwhelming. The court further held that the district court did not err, let alone abuse its discretion, in denying defendant's motion for a new trial under Brady because the phone records at issue were not material; the evidence was sufficient to submit the instruction, regarding defendant's attempt to influence the witness, to the jury; and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions and a reasonable jury could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court declined to address defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions.

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm after police found semiautomatic weapons in his home while executing a search warrant and defendant was sentenced to 37 months imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court improperly weighed certain sentencing factors and that his sentence was unreasonable. The court found no procedural error and held that the district court adequately addressed defendant's argument by stating on the record that the calculated guidelines range was reasonable in light of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. The court also held that the sentence was substantively reasonable where it was within the Sentencing Commission's discretion to recommend more severe punishment for convicted felons who possessed weapons such as the semiautomatic rifle found in defendant's room. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not err by applying U.S.S.G. 2k2.1(a)(4)(B).