Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was found guilty of transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and sentenced to 420 months in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release. The court affirmed the judgment. In this case, a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant transported a minor in interstate commerce with the requisite intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and the court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons. View "United States v. Duffin" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and use of a communication facility to further a controlled substance conspiracy. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress incriminating telephone recordings and rejected defendant's argument under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-22. The court concluded that the two government informants were acting under color of law when recording their conversations with defendant where the informants were acting at the direction of law enforcement. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury about the punishment defendant faced if convicted because the district court is not required to instruct a jury about the sentencing consequences of its verdict. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant played a managerial or supervisory role in the methamphetamine operation and imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(c). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lora-Andres" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 110 months in prison. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal where a reasonable jury could find that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by permitting the government to introduce into evidence defendant's prior felony drug convictions under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because the prior convictions were relevant, were not too remote, and did not unfairly prejudice defendant. Furthermore, the district court gave a limiting instruction which likely reduced any possible prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Tou Fang" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and was sentenced to 188 months in prison. The court concluded that the traffic stop was not pretextual where the deputy's observation of the traffic violation based on his use of the radar gave him probable cause to stop defendant's vehicle, and his subjective intent to detain the vehicle for a dog-sniff search is irrelevant; another deputy arrived on the scene within two minutes and completed the tasks related to the traffic stop, writing defendant a warning after the dog sniff was complete and the dog had alerted to the presence of narcotics; and there is no evidence that the dog sniff unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop beyond what was necessary to complete the stop. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's prior state and federal offenses qualified as prior convictions under USSG 4A1.2(a)(2). Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Fuehrer" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of sexually abusing a young child in and around New Town, North Dakota. On appeal, defendant argues that he should not have been tried and convicted in federal court because New Town is not “Indian country.” The court concluded that defendant was properly subject to federal prosecution because New Town is part of the Fort Berthold Reservation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Chad Everett Bear, Sr." on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to a drug trafficking charge, and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during and after a search of his vehicle. The court concluded that defendant lacks standing to challenge the entry into the parking lot of the apartment complex because he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that area. Therefore, the court need not address whether the officers' entry into the parking lot was lawful. The court explained that the uniformed officer’s act of shining a spotlight on defendant's car was not a seizure, and defendant does not claim that the officer effected a seizure by blocking defendant's SUV with the squad car. Once the uniformed officer detected an odor of marijuana coming from defendant's person, the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant and, a fortiori, reasonable suspicion to detain him for further investigation. In any event, the police had ample reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative stop of defendant in the parking lot. In this case, the smell of burnt marijuana and the presence of a marijuana cigar in plain view through the window were sufficient to justify a search for drugs. Finally, the court concluded that it is permissible to search an arrestee's person - here, defendant's pockets to obtain a key to the SUV - incident to an arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for distribution of methamphetamine, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, distribution of cocaine, and possession of a firearm by a drug user. Defendant argues that changing the address on the search warrant violated Rule 41 and Rule 4.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and further invalidated the search warrant. The court concluded that the phone conversation between an FBI agent and the magistrate judge was not recorded and thus violated Rule 4.1. However, as the district court correctly held, suppressing the evidence was not the correct remedy. In this case, the violation was not one of constitutional magnitude, defendant was not prejudiced by the violation, and there is no evidence of an intentional and deliberate or reckless disregard for the rule. The court also concluded that the affidavit established a clear nexus between drug dealing and defendant's residence, such that the mere address change had no effect on the validity of the warrant. The description was sufficient, and the district court properly determined that probable cause existed to search the property located at the address. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of witness intimidation where the testimony was used to show defendant was guilty of the charged crime, and was not excessively emotional or inflammatory. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Skarda" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for robbery after he and three others stole approximately $150 in cash and several cartons of cigarettes from a convenience store gasoline station. The court concluded that the evidence in the record supports the jury's conclusion that defendant had the requisite mens rea and intent for robbery and was not merely present at the scene; the government did not violate Brady v. Maryland by virtue of its use of video taken from the convenience store of the robbery (Exhibit 1) because the government had disclosed the entire video prior to trial; and there is no question that Exhibit 1 was correctly authenticated and that a proper foundation was laid for the exhibit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Hassan" on Justia Law

In 2009, Hobbs and her husband pled guilty to aggravated identity theft and conspiring to commit bank fraud. Hobbs was sentenced to 56 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. Her husband was sentenced to 80 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. They were ordered jointly to pay approximately $18,000 in restitution. In 2016, probation moved to revoke her supervised release, alleging four violations of her release conditions: Hobbs moved from her registered address without telling her probation officer; she failed to submit to a required urinalysis; she left her job without telling her probation officer; she stopped making restitution payments the month her husband was released. Hobbs admitted the violations. The government asked that her release be modified rather than revoked, with a condition of “no contact with her husband.” The court expressed concern that Hobbs’s violations were connected to her husband’s release and imposed a sentence of 30 days’ imprisonment and the condition: The defendant shall have no direct, indirect, or electronic contact with codefendant and husband, Jack Hobbs, during her term of supervised release. The Eighth Circuit vacated the condition as a “sweeping restriction on her important constitutional right of marriage.” View "United States v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Muratella was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). The prosecution proposed a plea agreement without mentioning a 21 U.S.C. 851 information. The following morning, the prosecution stated that due to a policy change it likely would have to file a section 851 information alleging that Muratella had a prior felony drug conviction. If Muratella was found to have such a prior conviction, the statutory mandatory minimum sentence would increase from 10 to 20 years. The parties had numerous discussions, but could not reach an agreement. Two weeks before trial, the prosecution inquired whether Muratella changed his position and stated that, if not, it would file the section 851 information. The next day, Muratella moved for a change of plea hearing, which was set for September 18. On September 17, the government filed the information. At the hearing, the court informed Muratella that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years. Muratella said that he understood and entered an unconditional guilty plea. Before sentencing, Muratella objected to the filing of the section 851 information on grounds that his prior conviction was too old to qualify and that the filing violated Department of Justice policy. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that the government had made its intentions to file the 851 information known months earlier and that no vindictive prosecution occurred. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that claim foreclosed by Muratella’s unconditional plea. View "United States v. Muratella" on Justia Law