Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction for smuggling firearms out of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 554. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in submitting a jury instruction on deliberate indifference. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Galimah" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, three counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base; and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the information contained in the search warrant application provided sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant to search defendant's residence and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant waived his claim that the district court abused its discretion when it did not allow his attorney additional time to review Jencks materials. Finally, there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Duke" on Justia Law

Defendant walked away from a prison camp at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) and a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant for his arrest. Defendant pled guilty to one count of escape of a prisoner in custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. 751(a). The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a four-level reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. 2P1.1(b)(3) where the reduction does not apply to defendants who escape from a prison camp because prison camps are not similar to the institutions described by section 2P1.1(b)(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Batts" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to show that defendant used a dangerous weapon; although defendant presented evidence in support of his self-defense theory, a jury could reasonably have rejected his testimony and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the other evidence, that he did not act in self defense; and therefore, the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the defense of property jury instruction; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the lesser offense instruction; and the court found no error in the district court's instruction to the jury on the issue of self defense. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress his boots and a saliva sample where, even if the affidavits do not set forth probable cause, the court found the good faith exception to the warrant requirement applicable based on the totality of the circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance motion; did not abuse its discretion in determining that the testimony of Danette Serr was relevant and not so cumulative of other testimony or so prejudicial such that it necessitated exclusion; and the court rejected defendant's arguments regarding the use of leading questions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Farlee" on Justia Law

Defendant Gutierrez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and Defendant Perez-Sanchez was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute and five counts of distribution or possession with intent to distribute. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the district court to conclude that a witness for the prosecution was an expert in reviewing Spanish-language audio recordings of controlled drug transactions involving Perez-Sanchez and preparing written transcripts of the dialogue in English; the district court did not err in permitting the jury to read the transcripts that the expert prepared where it was for the jury to decide whether the government met its burden to show that the transcripts were reliable enough to weigh against Perez-Sanchez; the evidence was sufficient to convict Perez-Sanchez; and the district court did not err in applying an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c) to Gutierrez's sentence where Gutierrez oversaw distribution by Perez-Sanchez, supplied the drugs, directed Perez-Sanchez to customers; and controlled the proceeds of the transaction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. In this case, the oral pronouncement was sufficiently ambiguous that the court was permitted to look to the entire sentencing pronouncement. Looking at the oral pronouncement, the hearing record as a whole, and the written record, it remained unclear as to whether the district court committed procedural error. Accordingly, the court remanded for additional proceedings. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a five-level upward adjustment for distribution in expectation of a "thing of value" pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) where defendant used a file sharing program to view the pornography. The government presented sufficient evidence of defendant's knowledge of distribution and the district court did not err in determining that defendant's evidence of ignorance was not concrete. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for revocation of supervised release. In this instance, the district court's earlier statement about counting on getting 36 months' incarceration for future violations did not display a deep-seated antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible where the district court gave a warning and recognized it was subject to change. The district court took great lengths to recite defendant's history, his performance on supervised release, and his attitude throughout the case. The court concluded that the district court acted reasonably, determining that defendant's behavior justified a 36-month sentence consecutive to his state sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

Defendant, serving a 144-month sentence for conspiring to distribute at least five grams of cocaine base, appealed the denial of his motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court affirmed, concluding that defendant was ineligible for a sentence reduction based on his plea agreement. View "United States v. Long" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to provide support to terrorists. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the terrorism enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3A1.4 where he planned the offense with the purpose of influencing or affecting government conduct; the district court did not err in relying on transcripts of his coconspirators from a related trial where the transcripts were relevant to defendant's sentencing inquiry; the district court did not err in finding that defendant obstructed justice by making a materially false statement to a probation officer and forfeited his acceptance of responsibility; and defendant's below-guidelines sentence was reasonable and was not excessive nor in stark disparity of his coconspirators. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Mohamed" on Justia Law