Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Charles Sorensen, a retired airline pilot, engaged in a series of actions from 2016 to 2021 to evade federal income taxes for the years 2015 through 2019. His conduct included failing to file tax returns, submitting false returns, making fraudulent refund claims, concealing income and assets, and refusing to cooperate with the IRS. Sorensen used shell companies, such as LAWTAM and LAMP, to hide assets and income, transferred funds to avoid IRS levies, and ultimately converted assets into cryptocurrency to further shield them from collection. He also filed frivolous documents and lawsuits challenging the IRS’s authority. The total tax loss attributed to his actions was $1,861,722.A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota convicted Sorensen on seven counts, including filing false tax returns, tax evasion, failing to file tax returns, and making a false claim against the United States. The district court sentenced him to 41 months in prison. Sorensen appealed, arguing that the district court improperly admitted testimony from several witnesses who were not qualified as experts and erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for sophisticated means.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and the sentencing enhancement de novo. The appellate court held that the challenged witness testimony was properly admitted as lay testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, as it was based on firsthand knowledge and personal experience, not specialized expertise. The court also found that the sophisticated means enhancement was appropriately applied, given Sorensen’s use of shell companies, cryptocurrency, and other complex methods to conceal his tax evasion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Sorensen" on Justia Law

Thomas Lamont Davis was investigated after selling methamphetamine to a confidential source on two occasions in March 2022. Law enforcement searched his residence in Des Moines, Iowa, and found firearms, large quantities of methamphetamine, cash, and drug paraphernalia. Davis was later involved in two separate high-speed chases while attempting to evade arrest, during which he possessed methamphetamine and cash. In one incident, Davis struggled with officers and bit one officer’s finger, causing injury that required stitches.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa presided over Davis’s trial. Davis moved to exclude evidence of his prior Iowa felony convictions for drug and firearm offenses, but the district court denied the motion and admitted the convictions with a limiting instruction. A jury found Davis guilty on all counts, including drug distribution, possession with intent to distribute, and firearm offenses. At sentencing, the district court applied a two-level enhancement for maintaining a drug premises and a six-level enhancement for assaulting a law enforcement officer, resulting in a 360-month prison sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed Davis’s challenges to the admission of his prior convictions and the sentencing enhancements. The court held that the prior convictions were properly admitted for permissible purposes such as knowledge and intent, and the limiting instruction mitigated any risk of unfair prejudice. The court also found that the evidence supported the enhancements for maintaining a drug premises and for assaulting an officer, and that there was no impermissible double counting. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with multiple counts after sexually abusing a female relative over a period of years, beginning when she was eight years old and continuing until she turned eighteen. He produced nude photographs and videos of the victim, including recordings of sexual assaults. Following his arrest, he was indicted on eight counts. He entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a child in exchange for the government’s dismissal of the remaining counts and a recommendation of a 25-year sentence. The agreement also allowed the defendant to recommend a 20-year sentence.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota accepted the plea but ultimately sentenced the defendant to 45 years’ imprisonment, which was within the applicable Guidelines range of 30 to 60 years. At sentencing, the government advocated for a 25-year sentence, using language such as “restrict its recommendation to 25 years” and “ask the court to impose no less than 25 years.” The defendant did not object to the government’s phrasing at the time. The district court considered the relevant statutory factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offense, the need for just punishment, and the protection of the community, before imposing the sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether the government breached the plea agreement and whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Applying plain error review, the court held that the government’s statements did not breach the plea agreement, as they were consistent with its obligation to recommend a 25-year sentence. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 45-year sentence, as it properly considered all relevant factors. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant began communicating online with an individual he believed to be a thirteen-year-old girl named Stella, who was actually an undercover police officer. Their conversations quickly became sexual, and they arranged to meet in person, at which point the defendant was arrested. After his arrest and release on pretrial supervision, the defendant deleted messages and blocked accounts of other purported minors, who were also undercover officers. Additionally, the defendant had been communicating with a real fourteen-year-old girl, Y.F., from whom he received sexually explicit images and with whom he had a prior acquaintance.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota presided over the trial. The government introduced evidence of the defendant’s communications with other undercover accounts as Rule 404(b) evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, including attempted sexual exploitation and enticement of a minor, and receipt of child pornography. The district court sentenced him to life imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed several issues. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the defendant knew Y.F. was a minor, based on his prior relationship with her and other circumstantial evidence. The court also found that, even if the admission of the Rule 404(b) evidence was erroneous, any error was harmless given the strength of the government’s case. However, the Eighth Circuit determined that the district court may have improperly considered the trauma to the victim caused by the defendant exercising his right to trial when imposing the life sentence. As a result, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions but remanded the case for resentencing. View "United States v. Barrios" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact involving two minor victims, Sarah and Jane, who were the daughters of his then-girlfriend. The alleged conduct occurred while the defendant lived with the family on the Yankton Sioux Reservation. The incidents included sexual acts with Sarah, beginning when she was 14, and inappropriate sexual contact and conversations with Jane when she was 14. The allegations came to light after one of the girls disclosed the conduct to her aunt, which led to a family meeting and subsequent involvement of tribal child protection services and the FBI. All three children were interviewed, and the defendant denied the allegations, suggesting they were fabricated due to family tensions.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota conducted a jury trial in April 2024. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. The district court imposed concurrent sentences for the counts involving Sarah and a consecutive sentence for the count involving Jane, totaling 135 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. During trial, the court admitted certain out-of-court statements made by the victims and their family members, over the defendant’s objections, and provided limiting instructions to the jury regarding the purpose of these statements.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in admitting hearsay testimony from the victims’ aunt and grandmother, and whether any such error was harmless. The Eighth Circuit held that while the district court clearly abused its discretion by allowing testimony that went beyond the limited nonhearsay purpose and improperly bolstered the victims’ credibility, the error was harmless. The court found the improper testimony was cumulative of the victims’ in-court testimony and did not substantially influence the verdict. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Mousseaux" on Justia Law

Robert Gafford, a rural mail carrier for the United States Postal Service in Scott County, Missouri, was observed by residents Karen and Doug Ressel to be failing to deliver their mail over several months in 2021 and 2022. Despite road construction initially being suspected as the cause, the problem persisted after construction ended. The Ressels reported the issue to postal supervisors, who repeatedly instructed Gafford to deliver the mail, but he claimed the mailbox location was unsafe. Both a supervisor and a union representative inspected the mailbox and found it safe. The Ressels used the USPS “Informed Delivery” service and an Apple AirTag to track their mail, ultimately discovering that undelivered mail was ending up at Gafford’s residence. A postal inspector then conducted a controlled test with a tracking device, which led to the discovery of the Ressels’ mail in Gafford’s personal vehicle.A grand jury indicted Gafford for delay and embezzlement of mail under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1703(a) and 1709. At trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, a jury found Gafford guilty on both counts. The district court sentenced him to fourteen months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed Gafford’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of testimony regarding the AirTag device, and the length of his sentence. The appellate court held that there was sufficient evidence for both convictions, finding that a reasonable jury could infer Gafford’s intent to convert the mail for his own use and that he unlawfully detained the mail. The court also found no abuse of discretion in admitting the AirTag testimony and determined that sentencing challenges were moot due to Gafford’s release. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Gafford" on Justia Law

After being stopped by police in Council Bluffs, Iowa, for running a red light, George Kitchen was approached by officers who detected a strong odor of marijuana coming from his vehicle. When informed that his vehicle would be searched, Kitchen initially agreed but then fled the scene, leading officers on a high-speed chase. During the pursuit, law enforcement observed packages being thrown from the vehicle, which were later recovered and found to contain significant quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine. Kitchen and his passenger were apprehended after police used stop sticks to disable the vehicle. A search of Kitchen and his car uncovered cash, drug paraphernalia, and cell phones with evidence of drug transactions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied Kitchen’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the initial stop was justified by the observed traffic violation and that the odor of marijuana provided probable cause to extend the stop and search the vehicle. After a jury trial, Kitchen was convicted on both counts of drug possession with intent to distribute and sentenced to 260 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion for clear error regarding factual findings and de novo for legal conclusions. The appellate court held that the traffic stop was supported by probable cause and that the district court’s credibility determinations regarding the officer’s testimony were not clearly erroneous. The court also upheld the admission of co-conspirator hearsay and other bad act evidence, finding no abuse of discretion and determining that any potential error was harmless given the weight of the evidence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed Kitchen’s convictions. View "United States v. Kitchen" on Justia Law

Investigators in Iowa and Minnesota identified an individual as a customer of methamphetamine distributors and, during a search of his home, found a loaded handgun, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia. The individual admitted to purchasing and distributing significant quantities of methamphetamine and to buying the firearm. He was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. He pleaded guilty to the drug conspiracy charge, and the government agreed to dismiss the firearm charge. The parties stipulated that a two-level sentencing enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon applied.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa adopted the presentence report’s calculation, which included the firearm enhancement, and denied the defendant’s request for safety-valve relief from the mandatory minimum sentence. The court found that the defendant could not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not possess a firearm in connection with the drug offense, citing the proximity of the gun to the drugs and the lack of an alternative explanation for possessing the firearm. The court sentenced the defendant to the mandatory minimum of 120 months after considering mitigating factors and granting a downward variance.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of the safety-valve statute de novo and its factual findings for clear error. The appellate court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding the defendant ineligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(2) and USSG § 5C1.2(a)(2), because the defendant failed to prove that he did not possess a firearm in connection with the drug offense. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law

During a protest in Minneapolis following the murder of George Floyd, Montez Lee, Jr. set fire to a pawn shop that had already been looted. Law enforcement later discovered the body of a man, O.L.S., in the remains of the building. Lee was charged with arson of property used in interstate commerce and pleaded guilty. At sentencing, the parties initially prepared to contest whether Lee’s actions caused O.L.S.’s death, which would have resulted in a significant sentencing enhancement. However, Lee’s attorney ultimately stipulated to the enhancement, and Lee was sentenced to 120 months in prison. The district court deferred a determination of restitution, as no victim had yet requested it, and entered an initial judgment reflecting this deferral.Subsequently, the parties agreed that Lee would pay $842 in restitution, and the district court amended the judgment several months later to include this obligation. Lee did not appeal either the initial or amended judgment. Over a year after the amended judgment, Lee filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the motion as untimely, holding that the one-year limitations period began with the initial judgment, not the amended judgment that added restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, for purposes of § 2255(f)(1), a judgment of conviction does not become final until all components of the sentence, including restitution, are determined and the time for direct appeal has expired. Therefore, the limitations period for Lee’s § 2255 motion began after the amended judgment was entered. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case, concluding that Lee’s motion was timely. View "Lee v. United States" on Justia Law

On July 2, 2022, Antonio Mashawn Airhart and his girlfriend discovered her borrowed car had been vandalized. Suspecting a neighbor’s involvement, a confrontation ensued later that day between Airhart and the neighbor’s brother, Martin Diaz, outside the neighbor’s apartment. During the altercation, Airhart was seen with a firearm, and Diaz testified that Airhart shot him in the face. Diaz returned fire with his own weapon. Law enforcement recovered shell casings from two types of ammunition at the scene and found an empty ammunition box and loose rounds in the apartment where Airhart was staying, with a fingerprint matching Airhart on the box.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied Airhart’s motion to exclude evidence of the empty ammunition box and loose rounds, and a jury convicted him of unlawful possession of ammunition after a prior felony and misdemeanor crime of violence. The district court sentenced Airhart to 180 months in custody and three years of supervised release.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Airhart challenged the admission of the ammunition evidence and certain lay opinion testimony by a detective, and argued the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The Eighth Circuit found that the district court erred in admitting the ammunition evidence, as it was neither intrinsic to the charged offense nor properly admitted under Rule 404(b), and that the detective’s lay opinion testimony was inadmissible. However, the court held both errors were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including eyewitness testimony and corroborating video and physical evidence. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Airhart" on Justia Law