Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to making false statements to government authorities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2). Plaintiff was told by her managers at Blackhawk to certify that Blackhawk guards had received training that they had not in fact received, thereby enabling Blackhawk to charge more for each guard’s services. As part of her sentence, she was jointly and severally liable for $442,330 in restitution. But, the district court also expressed a clear intention that the actual restitution amount should be much smaller, perhaps as little as $0. A federal court had already entered judgment against Blackhawk for more than $1 million. And the district court said, in sentencing defendant, that she would not be on the hook at all if Blackhawk paid its fine. Even in the absence of such a payment, defendant would only have to pay “at a rate of not less than $50 each month.” In 2013, defendant found out that the Treasury Department had seized tax refunds due her and that it had acted under the Treasury Offset Program (TOP), 31 U.S.C. 3716, 3720A. Defendant then filed a Motion for Clarification or Modification of Supervised Release in the sentencing court, asking that the tax refunds be returned and future seizures stopped. At the first hearing, the district court vacated defendant’s sentence, stating that it had not anticipated or intended that she be subject to such a harsh sentence. At the second and third hearings, the district court entertained further arguments about the resentencing. At the fourth hearing, the district court reimposed its original sentence. The court held that the sentence manifested a clerical error which the district court should have corrected. The court also held that, in light of the necessary corrections in the sentence, the district court’s refusal to remedy the TOP collection was error. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to require the government to return defendant's tax refunds and to cease withholding payments. View "United States v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration, contending that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Defendant was sentenced for possession of 68 grams of crack cocaine that occurred five days after Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, when Presidential approval was imminent and virtually assured. Despite knowing that when the FSA was signed by the President, the mandatory minimum sentence for his client’s offense would be cut in half, from 10 years to five years, defendant’s then-counsel failed to seek a continuance of sentencing. The court held that, under Strickland v. Washington’s two-prong test, counsel’s failure to seek a continuance of defendant’s sentencing was, in the absence of any informed strategic choice, objectively unreasonable, and it also was prejudicial because, but for counsel’s failure, there was a reasonable probability that a continuance would have been granted. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Abney" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of three counts of possession of illegal drugs with intent to distribute, appealed the denial of his motion to suppress drug-related evidence police discovered in his home. The court concluded that defendant did not establish good cause for not raising his preclusion argument before the district court and, assuming plain-error review applies, the district court did not plainly err by failing to give preclusive effect to the superior court’s probable-cause determination. The court also concluded that the district court's finding that defendant was one of four suspects who fled from a stolen car was not clearly erroneous because it was supported by testimony from an officer whose credibility defendant does not contest. The district court's finding provided probable cause for defendant's arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Burroughs" on Justia Law

Defendants, convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States, appealed the district court's imposition of the same sentences on remand. Although not required for a district court to provide an opportunity to object, the court believed that United States v. Locke describes the best procedure for district judges to follow - after sentencing the judge should ask if there are any objections to the sentence imposed not already on the record. Because defendants were given a fair opportunity to object and they failed to do so, their claims may be properly reviewed for plain error. The court rejected defendants' contention that the sentencing judge failed to consider the effect the vacated enhancement had on the original sentence and that he erred by reconsidering the seriousness of the offense. Finally, the court concluded that defendants' sentence was procedurally reasonable where the sentencing judge adequately addressed defendants’ post-sentencing rehabilitation argument and adequately explained reimposition of the original sentences. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hunter" on Justia Law

After appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to participate in racketeer influenced corrupt organization, he challenged his sentence on both procedural and substantive grounds. The court rejected the Government's argument that appellant's challenge is moot and followed the approach in United States v. Epps, holding that the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a sentencing challenge brought by an appellant who had completed his prison sentence but not his period of supervised release. On the merits, the court concluded that appellant's sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court acknowledged appellant’s contention that he should have been excused from the halfway house requirement and explained why, in keeping with the district court’s intended sentence, he would not be excused from it. Further, the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and there is nothing in the record that indicates that the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "In re: Sealed Case" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of conspiring to traffic in narcotics and numerous related crimes and subsequently challenged their resentencing on remand. The court rejected Defendant Farrell's contentions that the district court erred by failing to calculate the applicable Guidelines range; the district court erred by increasing his Guidelines offense level by four on the ground that he was an "organizer or leader" of a drug trafficking organization; the district court failed to consider certain relevant factors in determining whether a departure is warranted; and that his 262-month sentence is unreasonable. The court rejected Defendant Law's contentions that the district court committed procedural error by failing to calculate the applicable Guidelines range at resentencing and that the life sentence imposed on Count 1 violates the Eighth Amendment. Finally, the court rejected Defendant Fletcher's contentions that the district court failed to calculate the applicable Guidelines range; a life sentence for his conviction on Count 1 violates the Eighth Amendment; his 1987 conviction, which contributed to the enhancement of his sentence on Count 1, was entered pursuant to an Alford plea, and that a conviction based on such a plea is insufficient to establish a prior conviction under 21 U.S.C. 841(b); his 1977 conviction, which also contributed to the enhancement of his sentence on Count 1, was set aside under the Federal Youth Corrections Act (FYCA), 18 U.S.C. 5021 (1976), and hence should not have been considered; and there was a defect in the Judgment and Commitment Order for his 1977 conviction that rendered improper any reliance on that conviction for sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Law" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to distributing child pornography. The court concluded that the district court properly applied a cross-reference to the guideline governing production of child pornography pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(c)(1) and a two-level enhancement for using a computer to solicit participation with a minor in the production or live transmission of child pornography pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(6)(B). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Zagorski" on Justia Law

Defendants Cordova, Gutierrez, and Sorto appealed their convictions for conspiracy, violent crimes in aid of racketeering, murder, assault, and federal and District of Columbia weapons offenses. The court rejected defendants' argument that the court-imposed restrictions limiting their personal access to certain discovery documents deprived them of their Sixth Amendment rights to effective representation and to assist in their defense because defendants suffered no plausible prejudice. The court concluded that the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in declining to recuse himself in response to an allegedly threatening letter; the district court did not plainly err by holding its preliminary jury instruction conference outside the presence of defendants and plaintiffs have failed to show prejudice in support of their claim that the off-the-record proceeding deprived them of effective representation; and defendants are not entitled to a new trial where the court found that the district court's dismissal of defendants' second appointed attorneys was neither contrary to the statute nor an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cordova" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis, seeking to vacate his conviction for federal wire fraud on the ground that his attorney failed to properly advise him about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. The district court denied relief partly because the district court believed appellant was unable to show prejudice. The court concluded that appellant's first contention that his lawyer’s performance was deficient because he failed to “negotiate an effective plea bargain” and to “mitigate harm under the plea agreement[.]” was foreclosed by Padilla v. Kentucky and Chaidez v. United States. The court concluded that it makes no sense to suggest that although defense attorneys had no duty to advise their clients about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty prior to Padilla, they nonetheless had a duty to research those consequences and take them into account when negotiating a plea deal. In regard to appellant's contention that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by affirmatively misrepresenting the potential immigration consequences of a conviction, the court concluded that the district court should not have denied the petition based solely on the timing of defense counsel’s misrepresentations. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Newman" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to injuring a dwelling and placing lives in jeopardy, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's inadvertent indication on the written judgment of conviction that defendant register as a sex offender, and challenged the sentence as substantively and procedurally unreasonable. Because the government had not asked the court to enforce the appeal waiver regarding the sex offender registration requirement, the court addressed defendant's challenge on the merits and remanded to the district court to conform the written judgment to the oral sentence. However, the court agreed with the government that defendant validly waived his right to appeal the reasonableness of his sentence and dismissed defendant's challenge to his term of imprisonment. View "United States v. Ortega-Hernandez" on Justia Law