Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of production of child pornography and was sentenced to 354 months in prison. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence and the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2251 based on his prior conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree. The court concluded that the information used to establish probable cause was not stale where the warrant, issued eleven months after defendant took the photos of the victim, was not based on stale information; even if the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause, the Leon good-faith exception prevents suppression of the seized evidence; and the Government met its burden to show any error by the district court in applying the sentencing enhancement was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional and statutory rights by defendants. Plaintiff also sought certification of a class action suit against the United States Attorney General on behalf of African-Americans in Arkansas subjected to equal protection and due process violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff alleged that the AG Defendants violated his due process rights when they accessed his sealed trial records. The district court concluded, however, that none of the actions taken by the AG Defendants amount to a brutal abuse of power. In this case, the AG Defendants acted reasonably, particularly in light of Arkansas caselaw allowing the use of expunged records to impeach testimony when the actual innocence of the witness has not been shown. Because the AG Defendants' conduct failed to shock the conscience, no substantive due process violation occurred. Furthermore, because plaintiff had no state-created liberty interest created by the Arkansas expungement statute for the AG Defendants to violate, the AG Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim. The court rejected plaintiff's defamation claim against Attorney General McDaniel because he is entitled to absolute legislative immunity. Finally, plaintiff's Brady v. Maryland claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, are time-barred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Buckley v. Ray" on Justia Law

Defendant was ordered to pay restitution of almost $500,000 after he pled guilty to bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. The court concluded that, although the district court missed the 90-day deadline, the district court retained its power to order restitution; the government failed to provide sufficient evidence of the ultimate losses defendant caused the victim banks; and since more than four years have passed after defendant was originally sentenced, and in the interest of finality, the court declined to remand for a third restitution proceeding. Therefore, the court vacated the restitution amount. View "United States v. Adejumo" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 120 month sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon and unlawful user in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The government conceded that defendant's Iowa third-degree burglary conviction is not a crime of violence. However, the court concluded that the district court's imposition of the USSG 2K2.1(a)(2) enhancement was harmless error because the district court stated it would impose the same sentence regardless of the guidelines calculation. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying the section 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) enhancement where, based on the plain language of section 2K2.1(b)(4)(B), it applies when the serial number on the frame of a firearm is obliterated even if other serial numbers on the firearm, like the one left intact on the slide and the barrel of this weapon, are unaltered; the district court did not err by imposing a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) in light of United States v. Walker; and defendant failed to show any alleged procedural error affected his substantial rights or but for the error he would have received a more favorable sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Thigpen" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 300 month sentence after pleading guilty to production of child pornography, receipt of child pornography, and possession of child pornography. The court explained that grouping of the counts was irrelevant as a practical matter and harmless error. The court concluded that defendant's total offense level and Guidelines range were correctly calculated where the district court applied a five-level enhancement under USSG 4B1.5(b)(1) for a repeat and dangerous sex offender, a four-level enhancement under USSG 2G2.1(b)(4) for material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct, and a three-level offense under USSG 3D1.4 because defendant stipulated to the conduct that gave rise to the dismissed production and attempted production counts. The court also concluded that the district court's brief explanation of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors was adequate, and the sentence imposed was not unreasonably high. Because defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bevins" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 108 month sentence, arguing that the district court gave significant weight to an improper factor in determining his sentence. In this case, the court explained that it need not decide the incongruity between defendant's child care and his proven out-of-state drug distribution, and whether it would be an improper factor to consider. The court found that the district court's remark did not indicate that it relied on it to any meaningful degree. Rather, the district court discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including the crime of conviction, defendant's family history, current marijuana use, gang association, fugitive status, criminal acts while a fugitive, and conduct during arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wrice" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and 18 month sentence for making a threatening communication. The court rejected defendant's claim that the government repeatedly committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument by stating that defendant was not presumed innocent, indirectly commenting on his failure to testify, expressing its opinion on his guilt, and personally attacking his counsel. In this case, none of the actions defendant complains of were improper and thus the court concluded that the government committed no reversible prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in admitting defendant's 2013 conversation with a federal employee, in which defendant's comments were perceived as threatening; in imposing GPS monitoring as a condition of supervised release because it was reasonable and narrowly tailored as possible; and by imposing a total alcohol ban and substance abuse treatment because he waived any challenge to these conditions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. LaFontaine" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony. In this case, the district court found that the gun facilitated possession with intent to distribute, and thus defendant possessed the firearm in connection with the heroin possession. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The government sought to revoke defendant's supervised release based on his possession of cocaine and for sexual assault. Defendant challenged the district court's refusal to redact or amend certain paragraphs in the Supplemental Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). The court found that the district court followed Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 in ruling on the disputed PSR paragraphs covering allegations. The court concluded that, because Rule 32 does not compel exclusion of the PSR paragraphs, the district court correctly refused to redact them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Schrader" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury and child abuse. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding prior-acts evidence of a child abuse incident involving his wife and another child because the evidence does not tend logically to prove any element of the crime charged and is not an integral part of the immediate context of the crime charged. Furthermore, defendant failed to establish the required non-propensity purpose. Finally, the court concluded that the district court's limit on defendant's cross-examination of his wife was reasonable and there was no Confrontation Clause violation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Timothy White Plume" on Justia Law