Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant, the former CEO of MOD, appealed from his conviction on four counts of wire fraud, one count of mail fraud, and two counts of money laundering. The court held that defendant's mail fraud conviction must be reversed where the success of defendant's fraudulent scheme did not depend in any way on the use of the mails; convictions on Counts 6 and 7, money laundering, were affirmed where the convictions did not raise a Santos merger problem, and thus proceeds should be defined as "gross receipts" for the purposes of defendant's crime; defendant's claim that there was error in the jury instructions failed because proceeds did not mean profits in this case; the prosecutor's comments during closing were proper; and defendant failed to show that the district court committed plain error in imposing a standard condition of supervised release. As for the Government's cross-appeal regarding forfeiture, the court remanded to determine the amount that defendant derived from the wire frauds charged in Counts 1, 2, and 3, and to enter a forfeiture judgment against defendant in that amount. View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326 and his sentence. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment; the district court properly determined that defendant's 2007 conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale under Cal. Health & Safety Code 11378 was a drug trafficking offense under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A); and the district court's imposition of supervised release was reasonable. View "United States v. Valdavinos-Torres" on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss an illegal reentry charge after deportation. Defendant claimed that the IJ failed to advise him about the availability of voluntary departure. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that an alien could not collaterally attack his removal order by claiming that an immigration judge failed to advise him about relief for which he was statutorily ineligible, even if the government did not introduce before the IJ noticeable documentation of the aggravated felony conviction that rendered him ineligible. The court also held that defendant's sentence was valid. View "United States v. Bustos-Ochoa" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging his California conviction of second degree murder. The district court denied the petition but the court raised a certificate of appealability regarding whether there was a sufficient factual basis to support petitioner's no contest plea and whether his plea was knowing and voluntary. Because petitioner did not enter an Alford plea, the state court was under no obligation, under the federal Constitution, to find a factual basis. Petitioner provided no other reason to find his plea unknowing or involuntary. Accordingly, the court held that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief. View "Loftis v. Almager" on Justia Law

Defendant feigned multiple acts of biological terrorism by mailing hundreds of packets of powder labeled "Anthrax" - which were actually full of sugar - in an effort to drum up publicity for a self-published book on the dangers of Anthrax. Defendant was convicted on two counts of mailing threatening communications ("threat" counts), 18 U.S.C. 876(c), and three counts of communicating false or misleading information regarding the presence of a biological weapon ("hoax" counts), 18 U.S.C. 1038(a). The court concluded that defendant's mailings to Starbucks and McDonald's constituted true threats and fell outside of the First Amendment's protection and his convictions under section 876(c) did not violate the Constitution; defendant's hoax speech was not protected under the First Amendment; defendant's mailings to Starbucks and McDonald's managers were addressed to natural persons, so there was sufficient evidence for a jury to convict him under section 876(c); and the issues defendant raised regarding jury instructions and prosecutorial misconduct were unpersuasive. The court held, however, that the district court procedurally erred when calculating the applicable Sentencing Guidelines. View "United States v. Keyser" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of willful infliction of corporal injury to his spouse. Defendant contended that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses when the trial judge precluded his counsel from asking defendant's wife whether she was afraid to deviate from her initial incriminating statement to the police because of threats allegedly made against her by the prosecutor. The court held that clearly established federal law, as set forth by the Supreme Court, indicated that the trial court committed constitutional error by denying petitioner the right to meaningful cross-examination of the prosecution's leading witness. The California Court of Appeal's conclusion that the trial court's curtailment did not reach constitutional magnitude was objectively unreasonable, and had a substantial injurious effect on petitioner's verdict. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the district court denying habeas corpus and remanded for issuance of the writ. View "Ortiz v. Yates" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326 and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. At issue on appeal was whether the district court violated the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 (JSSA) or the Constitution in compiling its 2009 master jury wheel. The court held that, although the district court departed from the requirements of the JSSA in several respects, the court found no reversible error in the underlying conviction. Despite the court's conclusion, the court cautioned the district court to take note of the statutory violations the court identified and amend the district court's practice in the future. Because no JSSA violation warranted relief and there was no constitutional violation, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Hernandez-Estrada" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea for conspiracy to carry a concealed dangerous weapon on an aircraft, in violation of 49 U.S.C. 46505(e), and for aiding and abetting the carrying of a concealed dangerous weapon on an aircraft, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2 and 49 U.S.C. 46505(b)(1). At issue was whether 49 U.S.C. 46505 was unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant, an airport employee, who sneaks a pocketknife past a security checkpoint and then gives it to a passenger who takes it aboard an airplane. The court concluded that 49 U.S.C. 46505 gave adequate notice to defendant that a pocketknife with a blade of slightly less than two-and-a-half inches was prohibited aboard an aircraft. Accordingly, the court held that the statute was not constitutionally vague as applied and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed that defendants, officers of the Honolulu Police Department, used excessive force in arresting him. The officers moved for summary judgment, arguing that their conduct was reasonable and, in any event, that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The court held that the evidence gave rise to genuine issues of fact that were material to determining whether defendants used excessive force in breaking the car window and pulling plaintiff through it. Therefore, the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment to defendants. The court also held that the trial court's jury instruction enforced an erroneous partial grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and, as such, constituted reversible error. View "Coles v. Eagle, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with violating 8 U.S.C. 1325, a misdemeanor illegal entry by an alien. The next day, defendant was brought before a magistrate judge in federal court in Arizona for a guilty plea proceeding that was part of Operation Streamline, which was "a procedure for taking of pleas en masse." On appeal, defendant contended that his plea violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(2). The court has several times before held that certain aspects of group plea proceedings violated various provisions of Rule 11, and the court followed those precedents and again concluded that there was Rule 11 error. However, in United States v. Escamilla-Rojas, the court held that the error was harmless. The court reached the same conclusion here where defendant voluntarily chose to enter the plea and his substantial rights were not affected. View "United States v. Aguilar-Vera" on Justia Law