Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the information before the district court was sufficient to establish reasonable cause to investigate further defendant's mental competency; while the preferred practice would include the presence of the defendant when it appears likely that the defendant and the lawyer are at odds about the necessity of a competency evaluation, the court concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, the process and procedures undertaken by the district court were sufficient to satisfy the minimum requirements of due process; defendant's asserted lack of notice and opportunity to be personally heard would constitute, at most, a trial error; even assuming a constitutional violation, defendant has not demonstrated prejudice that resulted from the committal process; the committal process did not violate defendant's right to a speedy trial where defendant managed to work through three different lawyers, requested motions to continue, and failed to identify any prejudice caused by any period of delay; the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(A), specifically excludes from consideration delay resulting from an examination to determine mental competency; defendant's convictions did not violate double jeopardy; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Zavesky" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 240 months in prison after being convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, possessing with the intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Defendant appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the firearm charge because the guns found in his home were not readily accessible. The court rejected defendant's argument and concluded that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the required nexus exists between the loaded firearms and defendant's drug trafficking offenses. Accordingly, because the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the firearms charge, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McDaniel" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of distributing cocaine base, the district court applied the Guidelines' career-offender enhancement on the basis of two prior convictions, one of which was for first-degree battery under 5-13-201 of the Arkansas Code. The court concluded that it is not possible to inflict serious physical injury by means of a deadly weapon, as those terms are defined in the Arkansas Code, without employing physical force. Therefore, defendant's prior conviction for first-degree battery is a crime of violence. Because the district court did not err by applying the enhancement, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm and sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). Several of defendant's prior felony convictions were for second degree burglary of a dwelling, in violation of Fla. Stat. 810.02(3). Because the government concedes that Fla. Stat. 810.02 does not qualify as a violent felony, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing without use of the Florida convictions. View "United States v. Thorne" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to one charge of being an inmate in possession of a prohibited object. The court rejected defendant's claim that the government violated his right to a speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161-3174, concluding that administrative segregation is not an arrest under the Sixth Amendment. Therefore, defendant was not arrested when placed into administrative segregation and his Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights had not yet attached and were not violated. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss based on the insufficiency of the indictment where the indictment provides notice of the date the offense occurred, notifies defendant that the offense occurred in a prison, and specified the prohibited object he was accused of possessing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wearing" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child in Indian country. The court deferred to the district court's careful exercise of its discretion and concluded that the propensity testimony of two minors was properly admitted; the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government's motion for reconsideration where any possible error from the district court's ruling disqualifying the North Dakota U.S. Attorney's Office from participation in the case was harmless; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence based on the district court’s specific finding that the U.S. Attorney had been adequately screened from substantive involvement in defendant's prosecution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Luger" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, methamphetamine. The court concluded that allowing an agent to testify regarding defendant's text messages did not violate the best evidence rule because the texts were admitted into evidence; the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant entered into a conspiracy; the district court did not err in not instructing the jury first on a buyer-seller relationship; there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding on the quantity of methamphetamine attributable to the conspiracy on which defendant was convicted; and the district court did not make any drug quantity findings that increased defendant's sentence above the statutory mandatory minimum sentence required by the jury’s finding in the special interrogatory. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Trotter" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of actual methamphetamine. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant where she knowingly joined a far-flung conspiracy when she allowed a distributor to store multiple pounds of methamphetamine and the proceeds of drug sales at defendant's Nebraska residence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of carjacking and two counts of corruptly attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The court reversed the convictions for carjacking and one obstruction count and remanded for resentencing on the remaining obstruction count. On remand, the district court determined that defendant's advisory guidelines sentencing range was 41 to 51 months and sentenced him to 46 months in prison. Defendant appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing a two-level obstruction offense under USSG 2J1.2(b)(3)(C) because defendant's obstruction offense was "extensive in scope, planning, or preparation." The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant's acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under USSG 3E1.1. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Petruk" on Justia Law

Defendants Cree, Morris, and McArthur were convicted of criminal offenses stemming from their involvement with the Native Mob, a Minnesota prison and street gang. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Cree's conviction for conspiracy to participate in racketeering activity, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, distribution of drugs, attempted murder or assault in aid of racketeering, and various firearms offenses; the evidence was sufficient to convict Morris of attempted murder in aid of racketeering and assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering; Morris waived any claim of error based on an alleged constructive amendment; the district court should have applied the modified categorical approach to ascertain which alternative formed the basis of Morris’s third-degree burglary convictions and then to decide whether the convictions were violent felonies; the court granted the government’s request to vacate McArthur’s conviction on Count 11; in light of Rosemond v. United States, the jury instructions about which McArthur complains were not plainly erroneous; and the district court did not err in denying McArthur’s motion for judgment of acquittal on Count 10. Under the sentencing package doctrine, the court vacated McArthur's sentence and remanded for further proceedings. The court also vacated Moriss's conviction. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. McArthur" on Justia Law