Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants' convictions arose out of a series of events that took place while Defendant Robles was Treasurer of the City of South Gate, California. Robles, along with Defendant Garrido, a local businessman and friend, were implicated in two schemes to award city contracts to particular companies while reaping substantial benefits for themselves. On appeal, defendants challenged their convictions. In light of the the Supreme Court's decision in Skilling v. United States, which narrowed the scope of 18 U.S.C. 1346 to include only honest services fraud based on bribery and kickback schemes, the court reversed Robles's and Garrido's honest services fraud convictions and reversed Robles's money laundering convictions. The court affirmed Robles's bribery convictions under 18 U.S.C. 666 because such convictions did not required the defendant to be engaged in an official act. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Garrido" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against defendants alleging that he was unlawfully arrested and searched in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff was arrested for trespass under California Penal Code 602.8 because he was standing by himself inside a playground that was surrounded by a fence that had "No Trespassing" signs posted at every entrance. The court rejected defendants' argument that the grounds for custodial arrest specified in California Penal Code 853.6(i) applied not only to misdemeanors but also to infractions. Consistent with precedent, the statute's plain language, the rule against superfluity, and other persuasive authority, the court held that California Penal Code 853.5 provided the exclusive grounds for custodial arrest of a person arrested for an infraction. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's state law false arrest claim and remanded for further proceedings. If there are no further issues pertaining to liability on this claim, the district court should enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and proceed to a trial on damages. The court rejected plaintiff's remaining contentions. View "Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his mandatory-minimum sentence, assigning error to the district court's rejection of his sentencing entrapment argument. Defendant argued a lack of predisposition to commit an offense involving the amount of cocaine charged, and was thus entrapped. Because the capability prong of the predisposition analysis was both less relevant and more easily manipulated in the context of a fictious stash house robbery, a defendant need only show a lack of intent or a lack of capability to establish sentencing entrapment. The court clarified that outrageousness was not itself an independent prong of sentencing entrapment. In this case, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant failed to carry his burden and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Yuman-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant, a prison inmate, filed suit challenging his validation as an "associate" of the Mexican Mafia, a recognized prison gang. The court held that defendant's void-for-vagueness challenge of Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, 3378(c)(4), an administrative regulation that guides officials in validating inmates as gang affiliates, failed because section 3378(c)(4) clearly indicated to defendant that his conduct could result in validation. Although the district court should have evaluated whether defendant was validated based on "some evidence," remand was not required to correct the error. The evidence in the record showed that prison officials relied on "some evidence" to validate defendant as an associate of the Mexican Mafia gang. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Castro v. Terhune, et al" on Justia Law

On October 10, 2007, defendant was sentenced to 121 months in custody after pleading guilty to distributing 83.2 grams of crack cocaine. At issue on appeal was whether a defendant sentenced for a crack cocaine offense before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, was enacted was eligible for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court held, consistent with all circuits to have addressed the issue, that the FSA's lowered mandatory minimums were not available to such individuals. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's determination that the FSA did not apply retroactively to defendant. View "United States v. Augustine" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the application of a "sophisticated means" enhancement imposed by the district court, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2T1(b)(2), in determining their sentences following convictions for tax fraud. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that conduct need not involve highly complex schemes or exhibit exceptional brilliance to justify a sophisticated means enhancement. In this instance, the court concluded that defendants' effort to conceal income by using a bank account with a deceptive name was sufficiently sophisticated to support application of the sentencing enhancement. View "United States v. Jennings" on Justia Law

Tribal authorities of the Tohono O'odham nation charged LKAV, age 17, with murder in May 2009. In November 2011, the United States moved to commit LKAV pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4241 to an adult medical facility for psychiatric treatment. The court held that when the United States charges a juvenile with an act of juvenile delinquency under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA), 18 U.S.C. 5031-42, the district court must follow 18 U.S.C. 5037(e) if it committed the juvenile for a study of the juvenile's competency to stand trial. Because the district court in this case instead committed LKAV under 18 U.S.C. 4241(d), the court reversed the judgment. View "United States V. LKAV, Juvenile Male" on Justia Law

Petitioner, who pleaded nolo contendere to assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to 364 days in county jail but probation was imposed instead, petitioned for review of the BIA's holding that he was removeable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) for having committed a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of at least one year's imprisonment could have been imposed. The court concluded that its holding in Gonzales v. Barber - that assault with a deadly weapon under California Penal Code section 245(a)(1) is a crime involving moral turpitude - remained good law. Because CPC 17(b) did not apply and because the minute order designated petitioner's conviction as a felony, the court held that petitioner's conviction was a felony. The felony sentencing provisions of section 245(a)(1) allowed for imprisonment for more than one year. Accordingly, petitioner's conviction was a conviction for a "crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed." Therefore, the court denied the petition. View "Ceron v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty in federal court to an information charging that he was "found in" the United States on or about November 25, 2009, after he had been previously deported. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(d) could be applied to a deportee "found in" the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326, while he was imprisoned. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Reyes-Ceja" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the district court's denial of restitution to them and others who asserted that they have been harmed as a result of the offenses for which Frederick Scott Salyer had been convicted. Petitioners petitioned for a writ of mandamus filed pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. The court concluded that the district court committed legal error in denying restitution because of Salyer's claimed financial status and the potential availability of civil remedies. To the extent that the district court's denial of restitution rested on a determination that complex issues of fact would complicate or prolong the sentencing process, the record was unclear as to whether the district court conducted the balancing test required by 18 U.S.C. 3663A(c)(3) and determined from facts on the record that the burden on the sentencing process of determining restitution would outweigh the need to provide restitution to victims. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and remanded with instructions. View "In re: Morning Star Packing Co. v. USDC, Sacramento" on Justia Law