Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, convicted of robbery/murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, defendant raised several claims regarding prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper admission of post-arrest statements. The court addressed each claim and held that the district court properly denied the petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cunningham v. Wong" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for felony and misdemeanor assault. Defendant challenged his conviction on due-process grounds, claiming his constitutional rights were violated where the prosecution "threatened" one of its own witnesses with possible perjury charges, allegedly causing the witness to change her previous exculpatory trial testimony to be inculpatory. The court rejected the due-process challenge because defendant failed to meet his evidentiary burden. The court also held that defendant's claim of sentencing error failed because it relied on a misunderstanding of the court's opinion in United States v. Waknine. View "United States v. Juan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action claiming that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs related to dental care. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's judgment as a matter of law in favor of Dr. Dillard and Dr. Fitter and judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Brooks. At issue was whether the district court erred when it instructed the jury on the question of whether Dr. Brooks could be held responsible for failing to provide services when he lacked resources. The court held that the principle contained in the instructions given in this case was a proper one where the instruction took into account the duties, discretion, and means available. The instruction, in effect, stated that if Dr. Brooks could not "render or cause to be rendered" the needed services because of a lack of resources that he could not cure, he also could not individually be liable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Peralta v. Dillard, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants, four Chinese nationals, appealed their convictions and sentences for federal crimes that they committed as part of a scheme to steal funds from the Bank of China, where two of the defendants were high-level employees. Defendants also appealed their convictions related to their efforts to escape prosecution and to retain the proceeds by illegal transfers of funds and by immigration fraud. The court held that defendants' count one convictions were not the result of an improper extraterritorial application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), conspiracy statute because defendants' criminal enterprise involved both bank fraud and immigration fraud centered on stealing money from the Bank of China and traveling freely with that stolen money in the United States. The evidence was sufficient to support convictions on money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to transport stolen money. The court remanded for resentencing because the district court improperly relied on defendants' foreign conduct to meet the requirements of U.S.S.G. 2S1(a)(1)(A) resulting in procedural error, improperly applied a one-level enhancement based on foreign conduct, and failed to provide an adequate legal and factual basis for the restitution order. View "United States v. Xu" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced to 77 months' imprisonment. After the Sentencing Commission amended the crack-cocaine guidelines, the district court granted a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court held that defendant satisfied the first requirement for relief under section 3582(c). The court held, however, that U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(a)(1) mandated that the Career Offender guidelines were defendant's "applicable guidelines"; thus, the district court did not have jurisdiction either to hear defendant's section 3582(c) motion or to act sua sponte. The court also held that Freeman v. United States did not hold that a defendant's agreed sentencing range was necessarily the same as his applicable sentencing range and, even if it did, Freeman would have been abrogated by Amendment 759's clarification of the definition of "applicable guidelines." Under that definition, defendant's applicable guidelines were the Career Offender guidelines. Thus, defendant was not entitled to a reduction in sentence under section 3582. Accordingly, the district court's order reducing defendant's sentence was reversed and the case remanded with instructions to reinstate defendant's original sentence as set forth in his plea agreement. View "United States v. Pleasant" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former CEO of Millennium Pacific Icon Group, was convicted of conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Defendant failed to inform contractors that he hired to scrape and repair ceilings in a condominium building that the ceilings contained asbestos. The court held that the district court did not err in giving or formulating the deliberate ignorance instruction. The court also held that the district court's application of the nine-level sentencing enhancement for an offense resulting in a substantial likelihood of death or serious bodily injury was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Finally, the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant was an organizer or leader. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Yi" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Afghanistan, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for review of a determination by the USCIS that his felony conviction of assault with intent to commit rape rendered him ineligible to become naturalized as a United States citizen. The court held that the district court's grant of summary judgment to the USCIS as a matter of law was justified. Contrary to petitioner's claims, he had not been deprived of due process of law or been the victim of the improper retroactive application of a statute. Although he was barred from naturalization as a citizen, his status as a legal permanent resident remained in full force. View "Alocozy v. USCIS, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of distributing crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841. At issue was whether the district court erred by sentencing defendant as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 based on his two prior convictions under California Health and Safety Code 11352(a). The court held that the government had not satisfied its burden of showing that one of these two convictions qualified as a predicate offense and remanded for the district court to reconsider defendant's offender status. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for voluntary departure. Petitioner argued that the IJ erred by considering facts which, in a criminal case, might be evidence of a crime. He contended that in doing so, the IJ was using a crime as evidence against him even though he had not then been convicted of the crime alleged against him. The evidence of petitioner's sexual conduct with a minor was probative as to his bad character and undesirability for permanent residency, and it was therefore properly considered by the IJ. Although petitioner had not been convicted of a crime for the activity, he admitted the underlying facts before the IJ. Further, the IJ's discretionary consideration of that admission did not violate petitioner's due process rights by denying him a presumption of innocence. Accordingly, the court held that the IJ committed no error and denied the petition. View "Rojas v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 1995. Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court in California challenging a state court's denial of his request to obtain additional DNA testing pursuant to a state statute. Plaintiff alleged that he was the target of a conspiracy involving members of the county sheriff's department and others. The district court dismissed on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under that doctrine, the federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his first claim, which sought federal relief from the state court's determination in the DNA proceeding, and over his second and third claims, which were inextricably intertwined with the first. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court that his complaint was properly dismissed. The court also held that the district court did not err in implicitly denying plaintiff's request to amend his complaint. View "Cooper v. Ramos, et al" on Justia Law