Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed her post-revocation sentence imposed consecutively to her criminal sentence for illegal reentry. The court held that a district court can continue post-revocation sentencing for a reasonable time to consider a supervised releasee's sentence in the underlying criminal proceeding as part of evaluating the supervised releasee's breach of trust; in this case, the district court's approximately three-week continuance was not unreasonable under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1; and defendant's twelve-month post-revocation sentence was within the Guidelines range and was not substantively unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Reyes-Solosa" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to intentionally and knowingly importing 11.64 kilograms of cocaine into the United States from Mexico. The court held that the district court applied the correct legal standard, did not abuse its discretion in its application of the guideline to the facts of the case, and did not clearly err when it found that defendant was a typical commercial drug smuggler and not entitled to a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2; the district court properly considered the facts of the crime and the totality of the circumstances; defendant's below-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable; and the fine of $450 was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hurtado" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction under 38 C.F.R. 1.218(a)(5), which prohibits causing "disturbances" at VA facilities. The court concluded that the conduct for which defendant was convicted did not constitute protected speech because it involved a "true threat" of violence; even if defendant's conduct did constitute protected speech, section 1.218(a)(5) would not be unconstitutional as applied to his conduct where it is a viewpoint neutral regulation and the regulation was reasonably applied to defendant; the regulation was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant's conduct where defendant's actions unambiguously fell within section 1.218(a)(5)'s prohibition on "loud" and "abusive" language and on "conduct...which creates loud or unusual noise"; and, therefore, defendant's as-applied challenges to the regulation failed. In regard to defendant's facial challenges, the court rejected defendant's overbreadth challenge where 38 U.S.C. 502 deprives the court of jurisdiction and section 502's jurisdictional bar does not violate defendant's right to due process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court with regard to defendant's as-applied challenges and dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction with regard to his facial challenge. View "United States v. Szabo" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for charges that he unlawfully exported defense services and technical data related to the design of the B-2 stealth bomber and other classified government projects to the People's Republic of China, and that he disclosed related classified information to persons in Switzerland, Israel, and Germany. The court rejected defendant's claim that the right to prompt presentment before a magistrate judge was triggered before he was actually arrested, and that his inculpatory statements he made to federal agents investigating his activities should have been suppressed; the court rejected defendant's contention that the words "arrest or other detention" in 18 U.S.C. 3501(c) expand the right to prompt presentment beyond the contours of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a); and defendant could not invoke the McNabb-Mallory rule because he was not, during the period in question, either formally arrested or in "other detention" within the meaning of section 3501. The court also concluded that there was no error in the "public domain" or "basic marketing information" jury instructions under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (AECA). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Gowadia" on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed his conviction for attempting to enter the United States without consent after having been previously removed. In regards to defendant's collateral attack of the underlying removal order, the court held that defendant was not denied due process because the IJ's determination that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony was not contrary to the court's precedent at the time the removal order was issued and was the product of a reasonable reading of the statute; because defendant had been convicted of an aggravated felony, he was statutorily ineligible for voluntary departure, and the IJ was under no obligation to inform him of the existence of such relief for the proceedings to comport with due process; even if the IJ should have informed defendant of his apparent eligibility for voluntary departure, the failure to do so did not render the removal proceedings "fundamentally unfair" under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d)(3) because he was no prejudiced by the alleged error; and, therefore, the underlying removal order was a valid predicate to a conviction for attempted illegal reentry. The court also held that ample record evidence corroborated defendant's confession to the gravamen of the offense and establishes the trustworthiness of his statement to the DHS officer. Accordingly, the conviction based on defendant's videotaped confession does not run afoul of the corpus delicti doctrine. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Valdez-Novoa" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and robbery charges, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. Petitioner argued that the Arizona courts unreasonably rejected his claim under Napue v. Illinois that, during his trial, the prosecution also knowingly elicited and used the false testimony of a detective regarding when petitioner became a suspect in this case in order to secure his conviction. Petitioner also argued that the Arizona courts unreasonably rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claim where counsel was ineffective for calling a state informant as a witness when the informant otherwise would not have testified at petitioner's trial. The court concluded that the Arizona courts did not engage in an unreasonable determination of the facts or an unreasonable application of controlling federal law when denying petitioner's prosecutorial misconduct claim or petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of petitioner's habeas petition. View "Fong v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Petitioners, convicted of first degree murder, appealed their separate district court judgments denying their 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petitions. At issue was petitioners' Batson v. Kentucky argument that the prosecutor excluded African-American jurors based on race during jury selection. The court held that the CCA did not unreasonably apply Batson when it did not sua sponte augment the record so as to allow for comprehensive comparative juror analysis; the court could only review the CCA's decision under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2) in light of the evidence before it, and because it was undisputed that the first day of voir dire and the questionnaires were not in the record, the court could not include them in its analysis of whether the CCA made unreasonable factual findings; and, in regards to the partial voir dire and Batson hearing transcript, petitioners have not demonstrated that the CCA made an unreasonable determination of fact in light of the evidence before it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petitions. View "McDaniels v. Kirkland" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of receiving child pornography. Defendant challenged the constitutionality of U.S.S.G. 2G2.2 and the five-year mandatory minimum sentence. The court concluded that section 2G2.2 neither violates the separation of powers doctrine nor conflicts with 18 U.S.C. 3553; the court joined its sister circuits and held that the district court's application of a two-level enhancement for the use of a computer under section 2G2.2(b)(6) does not result in impermissible double counting; and because the district court properly applied section 2G2.2, defendant lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the five-year mandatory minimum as it did not affect his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Kiefer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after revocation of supervised release. The court concluded that the district court committed plain error when it violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(E) when it did not affirmatively offer defendant an opportunity to speak before imposing its sentence. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Daniels" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), motion for a stay of execution, and motion to amend or alter judgment under Rule 59(e). The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion substantially for the reasons stated in the district court opinion; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's claim regarding the denial of his motion for evidentiary development; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend its judgment denying Rule 60(b) relief; and the court denied petitioner's request for a stay of execution where he has failed to show a significant possibility of success on the merits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Wood, III v. Ryan, et al." on Justia Law