Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and two counts of securities fraud by use of manipulative and deceptive devices. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 36 years' supervised release. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he knew of Rule 10b-5; the district court did not err in imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement for abuse of trust under U.S.S.G. 3B1.3; the district court did not fail to be attentive to defendant's contentions as to mitigation; the court rejected defendant's contention that the district court committed plain error when it did not read the last two pages of his sentencing memorandum or view a DVD he had submitted; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Laurienti" on Justia Law

Stake Center petitioned for a writ of mandamus reversing the district court's denial of its motion for forfeiture under The Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. Stake Center moved the district court to compel the government to institute criminal forfeiture proceedings against Stake Center's former employee, who was charged with crimes stemming from her embezzlement of funds from Stake Center and others, and to obtain property traceable to the employee's crimes. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion or commit legal error in denying Stake Center's motion for forfeiture where the CVRA and Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A(a)(1), gave victims a right to restitution, not a right to criminal forfeiture. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in declining to order the U.S. Attorneys' Office to commence criminal forfeiture proceedings against the IRS and other non-parties alleged to possess assets implicated in the employee's criminal activities. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for writ of mandamus. View "In re: Stake Center Locating, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his sentence for committing lewd and lascivious acts with force against a child. The court concluded that petitioner's challenge to his parole term was moot because he was no longer on parole. The court also concluded that petitioner's claim that imposition of the sex-offender registration requirement violated Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler was without merit where the state court's decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Maciel v. Cates" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former Arizona state prisoner, filed suit against defendants, alleging that they violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12131-12134, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA), 29 U.S.C. 794, by failing to reasonably accommodate his disability. Plaintiff picked tomatoes for Eurofresh as a part of a convict labor force. The court concluded that plaintiff's claims against Eurofresh were properly dismissed because plaintiff and Eurofresh were not in an employment relationship, and Eurofresh did not receive federal financial assistance. The court concluded, however, that judgment was improperly granted to the State Defendants where they were liable for disability discrimination committed by a contractor. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court to determine in the first instance whether such discrimination occurred. View "Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc." on Justia Law

After plaintiff was criminally charged, plaintiff filed a civil action against United Airlines in state court, alleging that its personnel falsified police reports, falsely diagnosed an epileptic seizure, and threatened him with an ice mallet, among other things. United removed the case to district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The court granted United's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff then filed the present action against defendant, the Prosecuting Attorney of King County, contending that he had no jurisdiction to file a criminal complaint against plaintiff. Defendant moved for summary judgment, plaintiff did not file any response, and the district court granted the motion. Plaintiff did not file anything further in the district court, and, instead, filed this appeal to the court. The court agreed with plaintiff that, under the Federal Rules, a motion for summary judgment could not be granted based on a failure to file an opposition to the motion, regardless of any local rule that suggested the contrary. However, on the merits, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment where defendant was entitled to summary judgment based on any of his three arguments presented in his motion. View "Heinemann v. Satterberg" on Justia Law

The district court denied habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioner but issued a certificate of appealability (COA) on five issues. The district court then appointed appellate counsel under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. 3006A. Counsel subsequently filed an opening brief under Anders v. California, seeking permission to withdraw. At issue on appeal was what procedure appointed counsel in a habeas appeal should follow when seeking to withdraw. The court concluded that Ninth Circuit Rule 4-1 directly addressed the issue; counsel followed the proper procedure under Rule 4-1(c)(6); and, on the merits, the certified issues provided no basis for appellate relief and the court declined to expand the COA to cover the uncertified issues identified in the Anders brief. Accordingly, the court granted the district court's judgment and granted the motion for counsel to withdraw as counsel of record for petitioner. View "Graves v. McEwen" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murdering his wife, petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief, claiming that his constitutional right to adequate notice of the nature of the charges against him was violated when the trial court instructed the jury on aiding-and-abetting liability. The district court agreed and granted the petition. The court concluded that the prosecution's conduct affirmatively led petitioner to believe it would rely on an aiding-and-abetting liability theory. Thus, the aiding and abetting jury instruction violated petitioner's fundamental right to receive notice of the nature of the charges against him and have a meaningful opportunity to prepare a defense. Given the closely balanced evidence, the court could not say that the trial court's error was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smith v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegally entering the United States during an "Operation Streamline" proceeding. The court concluded that, although the district court did not err by advising defendants of their rights en masse, it erred by not questioning defendant individually to ensure that she understood her rights; the government has not carried its burden of proving that defendant would have pleaded guilty even without the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1) error; and, therefore, defendant's convictions must be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Arqueta-Ramos" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the jury verdict finding him guilty of sexual exploitation of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and knowingly receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2). The court concluded that section 2251(a) did not require that the defendant have knowledge that the materials used to produce child pornography had traveled in interstate commerce; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting at trial defendant's prior conviction for possession of child pornography; and a rational jury could conclude that the videos introduced at trial depicted sexually explicit conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sheldon" on Justia Law

This case involved the forfeiture of $671,170 in currency seized from a vehicle rented by claimant, a Canadian citizen. Claimant appealed the district court's dismissal of his verified claim and answer, and the resulting default judgment in favor of the United States, contending that he did not meet the statutory definition of a fugitive from justice under the Fugitive Disentitlement Statute, 28 U.S.C. 2466. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances supported the district court's conclusion that claimant has intentionally declined to return to the United States as to avoid submitting to the jurisdiction of the California courts and consequently facing the criminal charge pending against him. Therefore, the court concluded that claimant was a fugitive under section 2466(a)(1); the district court did not abuse its discretion in disentitling claimant under section 2466 and striking his answer and claim to the forfeited funds; and the district court did not err in denying claimant's request to convert the government's motion into a motion for summary judgment. The court declined to address claimant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. $671, 160 in U.S. Currency" on Justia Law