Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The district court sentenced defendant to 22 months imprisonment to be followed by 1 year of supervised release, imposing three special conditions of supervised release. Special Condition 4 prohibits defendant from owning or having pornographic materials, Special Condition 5 allows a probation officer to search or monitor his computer and electronic devices, and Special Condition 6 prohibits defendant from having contact with any children under the age of 18 without prior written consent of the probation officer. The court concluded that Special Condition 4 is appropriately tailored to defendant's circumstances in light of his original sex offense and the district court's finding of a pattern of inappropriate behavior towards minors; Special Condition 5 is reasonably necessary to monitor whether defendant is violating the pornography restriction and to monitor whether defendant is violating the restriction concerning his contact with minors; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing Special Condition 6 where the district court made individualized findings, including adding language directing supervised visitation to defendant's biological and legally adopted children. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Schultz" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon, he was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), based on his four qualifying prior felony convictions. The court concluded that defendant's prior conviction for second-degree battery under Arkansas state law qualifies as a violent felony. The court rejected defendant's contention that physical injury is not the equivalent of physical force, and that a defendant might cause physical injury without using physical force. Because defendant acknowledges two qualifying prior convictions, the battery offense counts as the third and the court need not address the fourth offense for terroristic threatening. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Winston" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of kidnapping, and three counts of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The court concluded that the district court did not err by instructing the jury on assault resulting in a serious bodily injury; even if the instruction was erroneous, it was not plain error because it did not affect defendant's substantial rights; the district court did not err by ruling that it would admit impeachment evidence of his prior conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury if defendant testified because, by not testifying, defendant failed to preserve his claim in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Luce v. United States; and the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of kidnapping where he beat the three victims and locked them in a crawl space. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lussier" on Justia Law

Defendant seeks to appeal an order denying his motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with three counts of Hobbs Act robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951, and one count of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). The court explained that these four counts were originally brought against defendant in a 2010 indictment, but were dismissed as part of a plea agreement in which he agreed to cooperate with law enforcement. Therefore, jeopardy did not attach during any of the pretrial proceedings and defendant has failed to present a colorable double jeopardy claim. Likewise, defendant has failed to present a colorable claim for collateral estoppel. Without a final judgment, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the merits of whether the government violated the plea agreement. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to filing a false income tax return and agreed to pay restitution to eight victims. On appeal, defendant claims that the length of her prison sentence was influenced by race or national origin (both hers and the victims’), the fact she immigrated to the United States, and her anticipated inability to afford to pay restitution—or at least that someone observing her sentencing hearing could have gotten that impression. Defendant challenges the district court's reference to defendant victimizing "her fellow Laotians." The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving any weight to race or national origin in establishing its sentence for defendant, and the district court did not improperly consider her socioeconomic status. Nor did the district court otherwise signal or even imply it was increasing defendant’s prison sentence to compensate for the expectation of not recovering much in restitution. The district court appears to have mentioned the likelihood of defendant's investors not receiving their money back primarily as part of a general background description of what she did and the harm she caused. Finally, the court concluded that the comments at issue provide no reason to suspect any prohibited considerations infected the district court’s sentencing decision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kouangvan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon and unlawful drug user. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the government to present evidence that revealed and related to his gang affiliation. In this case, the government tailored its use of evidence that referenced his gang ties to merely provide context for defendant’s own words about his overlapping personal involvement with guns and gangs, and also to show he had motive to possess a real gun or ammunition; the prosecutor’s comments were fleeting and the district court issued two detailed limiting instructions; and the district court did not commit reversible error. Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant for being a felon in possession. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Payne-Owens" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of aiding and abetting sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion; one count of aiding and abetting transportation with intent to engage in prostitution; and one count of being an armed career criminal in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying severance of the firearm possession charge from the sex trafficking charges where all three counts involved a series of events that occurred between January 6 and January 14, 2014, on a trip defendant took with the victim; the facts in this case are relatively straightforward, and defendant failed to demonstrate severe prejudice; the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony of defendant's girlfriend where the testimony about defendant's earlier use of force against her was relevant to the issue of his intent, the testimony was similar in kind and not overly remote in time to the crime charged, and the probative value outweighed any prejudice; the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony of a special agent regarding sex trafficking; and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions on Count 1 and 2. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Geddes" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm after a domestic-abuse conviction, and sentenced to 77 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. The court concluded that defendant's prior conviction for domestic abuse-strangulation is a crime of violence and the district court did not err by calculating his base offense level of 20 under USSG 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). The court also concluded that the district court properly applied a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Parrow" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession with the intent to distribute marijuana and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that the district court's failure to suppress defendant's statement made sua sponte outside his home was not plain error where defendant has not shown that the outcome of his trial could have been any different if his statement had been suppressed; the search warrant was supported by probable cause and the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress; and the district court did not err by allowing an officer's testimony regarding the correlation between firearms and drugs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Braden, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute less than 50 grams of methamphetamine mixture, 50 grams or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine, and 5 kilograms or more of cocaine. Defendant was also convicted of kidnapping. The district court sentenced defendant to two concurrent terms of 600 months in prison. On appeal, defendant challenges the district court's discretionary reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court found that the district court did not improperly consider or give significant weight to defendant's original within-guidelines sentence. The court explained that the original “otherwise final sentence” is a valid consideration within the district court’s discretion so long as it bears a reasonable relationship to the factors under section 3582(c)(2). The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s consideration or explanation of the other factors relevant in its decision to decrease defendant's sentence by 100 months. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Robles-Garcia" on Justia Law