Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his convictions stemming from his involvement in a scheme to kidnap for ransom Franklin Aguilar-Avila. The court held that the district court's admission of a government agent's testimony recounting Franklin's mother's description of a telephone call with human traffickers did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the challenged statements from the telephone call were nontestimonial and their introduction at trial did not violate defendant's Confrontation Clause rights. Further, even if the principle underlying the Rule of Completeness (Rule 106) extended to the statements at issue here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit portions of the interview. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Liera-Morales" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought information from the Department regarding the method of his execution, which the Department has not provided. The district court subsequently denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction delaying his execution until he receives the information. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction where plaintiff has raised serious questions as to the merits of his First Amendment claim; the balance of the equities tips sharply in his favor; he will face irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; and the injunction is in the public interest. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and the court granted plaintiff a preliminary injunction. View "Wood, III v. Ryan, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, contending that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress a shotgun seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence. The court concluded that there was enough evidence in the record corroborating the witnesses' statements to diminish the adverse effect of their credibility issues in the context of the probable cause inquiry. In light of the full record, there was a fair probability that evidence of the shooting would be discovered at defendant's residence. Accordingly, the district court properly denied the motion to suppress. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ruiz" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for criminal reentry, collaterally attacking his underlying removal order. The court concluded that defendant's attorney in the immigration proceedings provided ineffective assistance of counsel by erroneously conceding to his removability based on defendant's prior conviction under Missouri Revised Statutes 195.211 and by failing to appeal the removal order to the BIA and failing to petition the Seventh Circuit for review. The court held that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel throughout his immigration proceedings, he was deprived of his right to due process, the proceedings were fundamentally unfair, and the indictment for criminal reentry must be dismissed. View "United States v. Lopez-Chavez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to importation of heroin, alleging that the district court improperly engaged in judicial fact-finding in denying him safety valve relief from the mandatory minimum sentence and misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that the safety valve determination under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f) does not implicate Alleyne v. United States where it does not increase the statutory minimum sentence; the district court correctly assigned more than one criminal history point to defendant where he was on probation when he committed the federal offense and where there was an intervening arrest between his two previous state convictions; and, therefore, defendant was ineligible for safety valve relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Carrizales" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal John R. Grele and his former client, Markette Tillman, appealed an order removing him to the California State bar for disciplinary proceedings. The court concluded, under Flanagan v. United States, that it lacked jurisdiction over Tillman's claim where the removal order is nonfinal and not immediately appealable. Tillman has the opportunity to raise the issue on direct appeal. In regards to Grele's petition as to the sanctions order, the court concluded that mandamus jurisdiction is appropriate to consider the sanctions order, that the district court erred in imposing sanctions without notice and a hearing, and that the order should be vacated. View "United States v. Tillman" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction after pleading guilty to one count of importation of over fifty kilograms of marijuana. Defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress incriminating statements made to a federal agent 48 hours after his arrest, but before he was presented to a magistrate judge. The court concluded under the McNabb-Mallory rule that defendant's statements must be suppressed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a) because the delay in presenting defendant to a magistrate was unreasonable and unnecessary. The court reversed the denial of defendant's motion, vacated the conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Torres Pimental" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of production of child pornography and one count of penalties for registered sex offenders. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(4) for sexual exploitation of a minor by production of sexually explicit visual or printed material that portrayed sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence; the district court did not abuse its discretion in selecting a consecutive sentence; the court rejected defendant's general plea for reconsideration of the court's sentencing review standard; and the sentence was reasonable where the district court explained that it had conducted a thorough review of defendant's claims and the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and it demonstrated sufficient consideration of all of the supporting evidence provided to the court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Shouse" on Justia Law

Defendants Rodriquez, Murillo, and Mujica appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit murder and first degree murder stemming from the stabbing of a prison inmate, Peter Scopazzi. Because defendants failed to demonstrate that any medical negligence or removal of a breathing tube was so extraordinary that it would be unfair to hold defendants responsible for the resulting death, and because the jury instructions included the concepts of foreseeability and proximate cause, the district court acted within its discretion when it cabined the medical evidence; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence pertaining to the connection between the Surenos and the Mexican Mafia as relevant to defendants' motive in attacking Scopazzi; and defendants failed to demonstrate that a new trial was warranted based on the government's failure to disclose immaterial information regarding a government witness's sentence reduction and his cooperation in a DEA investigation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for violating the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16911 et seq. The court held that SORNA's delegation of authority to the Attorney General to determine the applicability of SORNA's registration requirements to pre-SORNA sex offenders is consistent with the requirements of the non-delegation doctrine; the court joined its sister circuits and held that SORNA does not violate the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering principle; and defendant's claims that SORNA's registration requirements violate the Commerce Clause and Ex Post Facto Clause were foreclosed by circuit precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Richardson" on Justia Law