Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to a mandatory minimum of fifteen years’ imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). As an initial matter, defendant's proximity to the stolen vehicle and his demeanor when the officer approached him provided the officer with reasonable suspicion to frisk defendant for weapons. The court concluded, however, that the officer’s seizure of the key fob in defendant's pant pocket exceeded the appropriate scope of a Terry frisk, and it should have been suppressed. In this case, while defendant was relatively close to the stolen vehicle and behaving nervously, circumstances which make this question close, feeling an unidentified key fob in defendant's pocket did not provide the officer with probable cause to conclude that the key fob belonged to the stolen Pontiac. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Craddock" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, seven counts of distributing methamphetamine, and one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Petitioner appealed the denial of his motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255, alleging that he would have entered into a plea agreement with the government and received a lesser sentence had trial counsel provided proper information and advice prior to trial. The court concluded that counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to properly explain petitioner's opportunity to obtain “safety valve” sentencing relief where petitioner failed to show Strickland prejudice because he did not establish that he would have truthfully provided the government with all the information and evidence he had regarding the offense. In this case, petitioner maintained his innocence and refused to accept the Plea Agreement or cooperate with the government, stating he would proceed to trial. Finally, the district court imposed a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on petitioner's pretrial threat of physical harm directed at a co-defendant who testified for the government at petitioner's trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Arteaga Talavera v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and then appealed the district court's conclusion that his prior conviction for second degree robbery under Missouri state law qualifies as a crime of violence under USSG 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). The court concluded that defendant's prior conviction does not qualify as a crime of violence solely because "robbery" was included in the commentary to USSG 4B1.2, and the court thus rejected the government's argument to the contrary. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and then challenged the district court's application of a two-level sentencing enhancement. The court agreed that the direct evidence of the details of how defendant's theft resulted in the victim's substantial financial hardship are, on this record, thin, and that the district court relied on some degree on inference to make such a finding. However, the court concluded that it was not clear error for the district court to have done so. Accordingly, the court upheld the substantial financial hardship enhancement under USSG 2B1.1. View "United States v. Brandriet" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court properly denied defendant's request for a reduction under USSG 3B1.2 where defendant admitted in the plea agreement to involvement in the conspiracy for two and a half years and operated with another individual who admitted to distributing 45 pounds of meth. The court also concluded that the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable where the district court heard from both parties at sentencing, adequately explained his sentence, and cited all the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors at sentencing. View "United States v. Hunt" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's revocation of his term of supervised release and imposition of two years of imprisonment. The court concluded that the district court did not procedurally err by relying on the violent facts set out in the presentence investigative report (PSIR) underlying defendant's prior arrests. The court explained that specific facts underlying the arrests may be considered for an upward departure and so should be fair game for a variance as well. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence where it gave proper consideration to the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and in reaching the sentence it did. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of unlawful use of identification documents and misuse of a social security account number. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict for both convictions. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit evidence related to his selective-prosecution defense because defendant waived the argument by raising it during trial instead of by pretrial motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Machorro-Xochicale" on Justia Law

Plaintiff pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a child and was sentenced to 144 months in prison. The court concluded that the district court did not err by applying a two-level enhancement because USSG 2G1.3(b)(3)(B) (using a computer to solicit customers to engage in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor) itself expressly covers defendant's conduct. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that Note 4 is inconsistent with the guideline itself. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by applying a five-level enhancement under USSG 4B1.5(b) (engaging in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct) because defendant's arguments are foreclosed by the court's precedent in United States v. Rojas. In Rojas, the court held that subsection (b) may apply where there is no prior sex offense conviction and the only pattern of conduct is conduct involved in the present offense of conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C 924(e). The court concluded that the officer's observation - that the crack in the car's windshield obstructed the driver's view - provided a reasonable basis for the officer's belief that defendant was violating Minn. Stat. 169.71(a)(1) and thus justifying a traffic stop; the smell of unburned marijuana provided a basis to further detain defendant that was independent of the cracked windshield and it also provided probable cause to search the car; and therefore, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress. The court also concluded that there was no violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(A), nor defendant's Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right; the district court did not err in granting the government's motion in limine seeking to preclude defendant from introducing at trial evidence regarding an internal affairs investigation of the officer; and the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's proposed jury instructions. The court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing because the court could not conclude that defendant's second-degree burglary conviction qualified as an ACCA predicate offense. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former acting director of cyber security at the United States Department of Health and Human Services, was convicted of multiple child pornography-related offenses following a jury trial. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained through the interception of electronic communications where the application was properly authorized; the affidavit in support of the search warrant provided more than enough information to support a finding of probable cause to believe that evidence of criminal activity would be found at defendant's residence; the district court did not err in denying his motion to exclude evidence of his "fantasy chat messages" at trial where the court has previously held that personal chats on child pornography websites are admissible as circumstantial evidence; defendant failed to demonstrate that the chats were prejudicial; but defendant was improperly convicted of engaging in a child exploitation enterprise. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's conviction on that count and remanded for resentencing. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. DeFoggi" on Justia Law