Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence on a conditional guilty plea for being an alien found in the United States following deportation. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the BIA did not err in finding defendant removeable based on his conviction for use of drug paraphernalia, which was a conviction "relating to a controlled substance" under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). The court held that the IJ did not violate due process by failing to inform defendant of the possibility of relief through a waiver of inadmissibility under section 1182(h). The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. View "United States v. Oseguera-Madrigal" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss a civil rights complaint. The court held that government officials were absolutely immune from civil liability for the decision not to extradite or to request only limited extradition of a criminal defendant. The court held that because the decision whether or not to extradite a criminal defendant was intimately associated with the criminal phase of the judicial process, defendants in this case were entitled to absolute immunity to the extent they participated in making the extradition decision described in plaintiffs' complaint. View "Slater, et al v. Clarke, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defense surrebuttal summation; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to excuse one of the prospective jurors for cause; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's proposed jury instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Maloney" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal. The court affirmed the sentence, holding that a prior conviction for "rape of a child in the third degree," in violation of Revised Code of Washington section 9A.44.079, categorically qualified as "statutory rape," which was a crime of violence for the purpose of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). View "United States v. Zamorano-Ponce" on Justia Law

In this prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, plaintiff appealed from the dismissal with prejudice of his first amended complaint for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated his rights by failing to comply with his medical "chrono," which required him to be housed in a ground floor cell and that defendants failed to provide him with an interpreter at medical appointments. The court held that the district court erred by refusing to consider arguments that plaintiff raised for the first time in his objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations on defendants' motion to dismiss; concluding that defendant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; and dismissing his complaint on the ground that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Further, the district court erred by failing to provide notice pursuant to Rand v. Rowland. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Akhtar v. J. Mesa, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for assaulting a federal officer. Defendant argued that his conviction should be reversed because the district court's jury instructions failed to inform the jury adequately that the government bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. The court concluded that the jury instructions in this case correctly stated the government's burden of proof on the entire issue of self-defense. The court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pepper" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's decision to modify the protective order issued in his federal habeas proceeding to permit respondent to turn over materials produced during the federal proceeding to the agency that would prosecute his resentencing. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting the motion for modification as to materials that were privileged. The court vacated the portion of the order relating to privileged materials and remanded to the district court for further proceedings to resolve all disputes as to which specific materials were privileged and thus were covered by its protective order. The court held, however, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the protective order so as to exclude from its coverage non-privileged material, and therefore affirmed that portion of its order. Because the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing, the disqualification of the Arizona Attorney General's Office from representing respondents was not moot. View "Lambright v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment based on the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161, 3162, and the use of a two-level sentencing enhancement for use of a computer. The court held that defendant waived his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss; the trial court committed no error in enhancing defendant's sentence for use of a computer; and therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his requests to limit the courtroom presence of a law enforcement officer who was the prosecution's main witness. Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion and denied him due process by declining to exclude the officer from the courtroom, by allowing the officer to sit at the prosecution's table, and by declining to require the officer testify first. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that Federal Rule of Evidence 615 required a district court to permit a designated officer to be present during trial and any related decisions were discretionary. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion or violation of due process. View "United States v. Valencia-Riascos" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the district court's decision to increase his sentence by two levels under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). The court held that the district court did not err in enhancing defendant's sentence based on its finding that he constructively possessed four firearms. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Nungaray" on Justia Law