Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant was convicted of three counts of conspiring to distribute, distributing, and aiding and abetting the distribution of heroin; and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. Specifically, defendant argued that the government violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial by filing an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s decision to exclude the DNA evidence. The court weighed the Barker factors and concluded that defendant has not proved that the government violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The court explained that, given that only twelve and a half months of the pretrial delay was attributable to the government, defendant's failure to show the government was at fault for pursuing the year-long interlocutory appeal or the delay caused him prejudice is fatal to his claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sims" on Justia Law

After defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, he appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the firearm found in a rental car. The court concluded that defendant did not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car and he has no standing to challenge the search. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Russell" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 121 month sentence and conviction for possessing child pornography. The court concluded that defendant's conditions of release, which he proposed, expressly authorized the warrantless searches of his computer's internet and email usage history; the search and seizure were reasonable; and the district court properly denied the motion to suppress. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and the district court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal. As to defendant's sentence, the court concluded that the district court did not err in applying an enhancement required by 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2) where his prior conviction for transporting obscene matters in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1462 is related to sexual assault and child pornography. Finally, the district court properly exercised its discretion in denying a downward departure, even in light of defendant's prostate cancer, where the district court had no unconstitutional motive and knew of its authority to grant a downward departure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McCoy" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 135 month sentence and restitution after pleading guilty to one count of possessing child pornography. Defendant possessed over 600 images and videos of child pornography, including depictions of child rape and bondage. Among these were 21 videos from the “Vicky series,” depicting her sexual abuse at the age of 10 and 11. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing at the bottom of the guidelines range and by carefully considering the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. The court also concluded that the district court properly awarded restitution to Vicky based on future losses; the district court properly applied the Paroline v. United States factors in its proximate cause determination; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $3,500 in restitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Funke" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for transporting, producing, and attempting to produce child pornography and with possessing one or more computer files and other matter containing child pornography, all after having been previously convicted of a state-law offense involving the sexual abuse of a minor. The court agreed with the district court that the information set forth in the affidavit in this case established probable cause to believe that defendant's residence would contain evidence of the prohibited images of the minor victim. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a Franks hearing where defendant's argument is based upon supposition and isolated testimonial statements taken out of context. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Brackett" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of three counts of capital murder and sentenced to death, challenges the district court's order denying his motion to reopen a final judgment dismissing his habeas corpus application as untimely. The court declined to express a view at this time regarding the district court's conclusion and thought it prudent under the circumstances for the district court to develop the record on the actions of original counsel so that a decision on petitioner's allegation of abandonment is based on a more complete understanding of the facts. Accordingly, the court remanded for a prompt, limited evidentiary hearing on the question of abandonment. View "Christeson v. Roper" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm, he was sentenced to the statutory maximum penalty of 120 months in prison. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence and argued that the district court improperly calculated his Sentencing Guidelines range. The court concluded, however, that it need not address the merits of defendant's contentions because even if the district court erred in its Guidelines calculation, its sentence is affirmable. In this case, the district court founded its sentence upon its determination that the statutory maximum is the appropriate sentence and that no sentence within any argued Guidelines range would suffice in this circumstance. Because any error was harmless, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McGrew" on Justia Law

The government challenges the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence obtained as a result of a warrant search of defendant's home. The court concluded that the district court committed plain error in not considering whether there was a sufficient factual nexus between the constitutional violation - the recklessly untrue warrant affidavit - and defendant's statements to an agent two days later. In this case, the factors supporting this conclusion include the fact that defendant received Miranda warnings, the temporal proximity between defendant's arrest and his interview with the agent, several intervening circumstances weighing against suppression, and the unintentional error in describing for an issuing magistrate what the deputy believed to be probable cause was not purposeful or flagrant misconduct. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Jorgensen" on Justia Law