Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Joe May was indicted for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and violations of the Anti-Kickback statute, among other charges, related to defrauding TRICARE. May, a medical doctor, was recruited to sign prescriptions for compounded drugs without evaluating patients. He signed 226 prescriptions, mostly without determining medical necessity. May received cash payments for his participation. When investigated, May created false medical records and lied to the FBI.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas convicted May on all counts and sentenced him to 102 months imprisonment, ordering restitution of over $4.6 million. May appealed, challenging the admission of business records, limitations on cross-examination, jury instructions, the government's closing argument, and the sufficiency of evidence for certain charges.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting business records or limiting cross-examination. The court upheld the jury instructions and found no error in the government's closing argument. The court determined there was sufficient evidence for the conspiracy, mail fraud, and kickback charges. However, the court found plain error in one count of aggravated identity theft related to Perry Patterson, as the jury was not instructed on the correct underlying offense.The Eighth Circuit reversed the conviction on the aggravated identity theft count related to Patterson, remanded to vacate the special assessment for that count, and affirmed all other aspects of the case. View "United States v. May" on Justia Law

Mohammad Al Sharairei and his wife owned and operated Puff N Stuff II, a shop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which sold various products, including synthetic cannabinoids labeled as "potpourri" and "incense." In May 2013, law enforcement conducted an undercover purchase at the store, and subsequent testing revealed the presence of synthetic cannabinoids. A search warrant executed in June 2013 led to the seizure of products and sales records indicating that synthetic cannabinoids constituted a significant portion of the store's revenue. Al Sharairei admitted to being a major seller of these products and described methods to avoid law enforcement detection.The government charged Al Sharairei with maintaining a premises for the distribution of controlled substance analogues and conspiracy to distribute controlled substance analogues. After failing to appear for a scheduled guilty plea hearing, Al Sharairei absconded and was later extradited from Brazil. In September 2022, a jury convicted him on both counts, and the district court sentenced him to 240 months in prison and ordered a forfeiture of $425,000.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Al Sharairei challenged the district court's willful blindness instruction, the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of his motion for a new trial, the forfeiture order, and the calculation of his advisory Guidelines range. The Eighth Circuit held that the willful blindness instruction was appropriate, as the evidence supported an inference that Al Sharairei was aware of the high probability that the substances were controlled and took deliberate actions to avoid learning the facts. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and upheld the district court's decisions on the forfeiture order and sentencing enhancements. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in all respects. View "United States v. Sharairei" on Justia Law

Jaylyn McGhee was involved in a shooting outside his home in Davenport, Iowa, where his six-year-old son was injured. Law enforcement responded to the scene and found shell casings, suspected narcotics, and money outside McGhee's house. Officers observed blood spatter and a powdery substance on the deck and stairs leading to a side door of the house. Based on these observations, they obtained a search warrant and found drugs and firearms inside McGhee's home. McGhee was charged with drug and firearm offenses, pled guilty, and was sentenced to 60 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied McGhee's motion to suppress the evidence found in his home, ruling that the officers' observations from the front yard were lawful and that exigent circumstances justified their entry into the side yard. The court also applied a four-level sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with drug trafficking, based on evidence from controlled buys and the proximity of the drugs and firearms found in McGhee's home.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, agreeing that the officers' initial observations were lawful and that exigent circumstances justified their further actions. The court also upheld the sentencing enhancement, finding that the district court did not err in relying on the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines and that the evidence supported the connection between the firearms and drug trafficking. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. McGhee" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2021, the Southeast Iowa Narcotics Task Force (SEINT) received tips about heroin distribution in Burlington, Iowa. Following a search warrant at Michael Brown’s home, detectives found evidence of narcotics distribution. Subsequent investigations and controlled buys revealed that Gilbert Ellis, Christopher Ellis, and Joshua Townsen were involved in distributing methamphetamine and heroin. Gilbert, who used a wheelchair, directed others in drug transactions. Christopher and Townsen also participated in the distribution network, with Townsen procuring methamphetamine for Gilbert.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa handled the initial proceedings. Gilbert pled guilty to multiple counts of drug distribution and conspiracy without a plea agreement. The court applied a “manager or supervisor” enhancement to his sentence, resulting in 240 months’ imprisonment. Christopher, classified as a career offender, received 200 months’ imprisonment. Townsen, deemed ineligible for safety-valve relief due to a prior burglary conviction, was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgments. It found no clear error in applying the “manager or supervisor” enhancement to Gilbert’s sentence, as evidence showed he directed drug transactions. The court also upheld the career-offender enhancement for Christopher, rejecting his argument that his prior marijuana conviction did not qualify as a controlled substance offense. Finally, the court confirmed Townsen’s ineligibility for safety-valve relief, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Pulsifer v. United States. The appellate court concluded that the sentences were procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Ellis" on Justia Law

Christopher Black pleaded guilty to three counts of production of child pornography, one count of receipt of child pornography, and one count of possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to 720 months’ imprisonment. Black appealed, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained through two warrantless searches and challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.The FBI began investigating the disappearance of a fourteen-year-old girl, A.W., in December 2021. They traced her phone to Keokuk, Iowa, and linked it to Black, who had a history of sex crimes involving juveniles. The FBI conducted a warrantless search of an Airbnb in Keokuk where Black and A.W. were believed to be staying, finding evidence suggesting A.W. was there. Later, Black and A.W. were found at another Airbnb in Minneapolis, leading to another warrantless search. Evidence from these searches led to Black’s indictment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied Black’s motion to suppress, finding the warrantless searches justified by exigent circumstances. Black entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. He was sentenced to 720 months, below the advisory guidelines term of 1,560 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. They upheld the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress, agreeing that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless searches. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s sentencing, noting that the sentence was already below the guidelines range and that the district court did not err in its judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "U.S. v. Black" on Justia Law

Anton “Tony” Lazzaro was convicted by a jury of sex trafficking minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. He appealed the district court's denial of his motions, arguing that the federal sex trafficking statute is unconstitutionally vague, the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, he should have been allowed to introduce evidence of the state age of consent, and his trial was tainted by prosecutorial and juror misconduct.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Lazzaro's motion to dismiss the indictment, finding the statute was not unconstitutionally vague. The court also granted the Government's motion to exclude evidence of the state age of consent, ruling it irrelevant to the federal charges. During the trial, the court denied Lazzaro's motions for judgment of acquittal, and the jury found him guilty on all counts. Post-trial, the district court denied Lazzaro's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror and prosecutorial misconduct, concluding the evidence was not newly discovered and the claims lacked merit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that the federal sex trafficking statute provided adequate notice and did not lend itself to arbitrary enforcement. The evidence was sufficient to support Lazzaro's convictions, as his conduct clearly fell within the statute's prohibitions. The court also found no abuse of discretion in excluding evidence of the state age of consent, as it was irrelevant and potentially confusing to the jury. The court rejected Lazzaro's claims of prosecutorial misconduct, noting that any potential prejudice was mitigated by the district court's curative instructions. Finally, the court upheld the denial of a new trial based on juror misconduct, finding no evidence of dishonesty or bias that would have warranted a different outcome. View "United States v. Lazzaro" on Justia Law

Kenneth Worthy was convicted by a jury of sexual exploitation of a minor and receipt and distribution of child pornography. During the investigation, law enforcement interviewed Worthy and conducted a consensual search of his phone, uncovering evidence of molestation. Worthy moved to suppress the statements from his interview and the evidence from his phone, claiming coercion. The district court denied both motions, and Worthy was sentenced to 480 months in prison. The court added eight points to his criminal history under the Sentencing Guidelines.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Worthy's motions to suppress, finding that he was not in custody during the interview and had knowingly waived his Miranda rights. The court also found that Worthy consented to the phone search without coercion. Worthy was convicted and sentenced to a below-Guidelines sentence of 360 months for sexual exploitation and a consecutive 120 months for receipt and distribution of child pornography.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Worthy's motions to suppress, finding that Worthy voluntarily consented to the search of his phone and knowingly waived his Miranda rights. The court also upheld the admission of a photo as intrinsic evidence and found no abuse of discretion. Additionally, the court affirmed the application of the sentencing enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1, concluding that the evidence supported the enhancements for sexual acts, distribution, sadistic conduct, and the relationship between Worthy and the minor. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Worthy" on Justia Law

Jeremy Young was convicted by a jury of possessing an unregistered firearm and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was also convicted by a separate jury of assaulting a federal officer. Young received a total sentence of 84 months’ imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. He appealed, challenging the Government’s use of peremptory strikes against Native American venirepersons, the district court’s decision to admit certain evidence as res gestae, and the sufficiency of the evidence at both trials.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denied Young’s Batson challenges, finding the Government’s reasons for striking the Native American jurors to be legitimate and race-neutral. The court also admitted excerpts of Young’s recorded interview with Agent Kumley, where Young discussed his plans to transport methamphetamine, as relevant res gestae evidence. The jury found Young guilty on all counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court’s Batson analysis, noting that the Government provided race-neutral reasons for striking the jurors and that Young failed to demonstrate pretext. The court also upheld the admission of the recorded interview, agreeing that it provided relevant context for Young’s possession of the shotgun. Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Young’s convictions, as the jury reasonably found that Young had both actual and constructive possession of the firearm and that he intentionally assaulted Sergeant Antoine. View "United States v. Young" on Justia Law

Police discovered 788 pounds of marijuana and related paraphernalia in a Minnesota warehouse, where Danny Gehl and five others were present. Gehl was charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Evidence included surveillance, searches of Gehl’s home, and his phone, revealing marijuana, cash, and drug paraphernalia. Gehl was convicted and sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment, the mandatory minimum.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota handled the initial trial. Gehl was convicted on both counts, and the court sentenced him to the mandatory minimum of 120 months. Gehl appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for his conviction and improper denial of safety-valve relief and a minor-participant downward adjustment at sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Gehl’s conviction, noting his involvement in the conspiracy and the substantial amount of marijuana involved. The court also found no error in the district court’s denial of safety-valve relief, as Gehl’s proffer was not truthful. Lastly, the court deemed the issue of the minor-participant adjustment moot, as Gehl’s sentence would remain the same due to the mandatory minimum. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Gehl" on Justia Law

Kira Zielinski took her minor child to Mexico to deprive her ex-husband of his parental rights. Upon returning to the United States, she was indicted for international parental kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1204(a). After a bench trial, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa found her guilty and sentenced her to 36 months in prison. Zielinski appealed, arguing that the district court wrongly prevented her from presenting evidence that she fled to protect her child from sexual abuse by the father.The district court ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 1204(c)(2), which provides an affirmative defense for fleeing domestic violence, did not apply because Zielinski did not claim she was a victim of domestic violence herself. The court interpreted the statute to mean that the defense only applies if the defendant, not a third party like Zielinski’s child, suffered domestic violence. Zielinski contended that the statute should cover situations where the defendant aids a third party in escaping domestic violence, but the district court disagreed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of § 1204(c)(2) de novo and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that the statute’s plain language does not include defense of a third party and that Congress could have explicitly included such language if intended. The court also rejected Zielinski’s arguments that the statute is void for vagueness and that the district court’s interpretation violated the rule of lenity, finding the statute’s language clear and unambiguous. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Zielinski" on Justia Law