Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on his three prior violent felony convictions. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of prior allegations of excessive force by an officer because plaintiff was entitled to present his defense theory; the district court did not err by concluding that his prior conviction under Minnesota's drive by shooting statute, Minn. Stat. 609.66, subd. 1e, qualifies as a violent felony under the force clause of the ACCA; a review of plaintiff's guilty plea record reveals that he was convicted of firing "at or toward a person" under subdivision 1e(b); and since plaintiff's prior conviction required a mens rea of recklessness, it qualified as a violent felony. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Fogg" on Justia Law

Defendant appeals her sentence after pleading guilty to a drug distribution conspiracy. Defendant challenges the sentence primarily on the ground that the district court did not explicitly rule on her objection relating to a mitigating role adjustment. The court concluded that the district court did not rule on defendant's role-adjustment objection and thus there was no clear error in its calculation of defendant's sentencing guidelines range based on the denial of a mitigating role adjustment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Durham" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit money laundering. On appeal, defendant challenged the addition of one criminal-history point under USSG 4A1.1. The court concluded that the district court correctly added a criminal history point for defendant's armed criminal action (ACA) conviction. The court reviewed defendant's pro se supplemental brief and authorized the filing of the supplemental brief on the issue of whether defendant's prior first-degree robbery and ACA conviction is a crime of violence. In this case, the record does not indicate whether the district court relied on the residual clause or the force clause to determine that defendant's ACA offense was a crime of violence under USSG 4A1.1(e). Because the court lacks full briefing and an adequate record to address this issue, the court remanded for additional sentencing proceedings. View "United States v. Miranda-Zarco" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of an 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based upon Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782, which in most cases retroactively reduced the drug quantity determination by two base offense levels. The court concluded that section 3582 does not entitle defendant to a sentencing reduction; the district court did not abuse its discretion where the district court examined the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including the drug quantity and various legitimate aggravating factors, and concluded that a 140-month sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing; and defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion by basing its decision in part on his post-sentence conduct because the probation office’s report did not include any such information is without merit. In this case, the district court may also consider the lack of positive post-sentence information in denying a reduction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank robberies and three counts of aiding and abetting the robbery of those banks. The court concluded that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress where the officers' employment of a roadblock was reasonable because the officers had reliable information that the bank robber was among the two cars that were stopped and the roadblock significantly advanced the public interest. The court rejected defendant's Batson v. Kentucky challenges and concluded that defendant failed to show pretext for race discrimination. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence of 210 months in prison was substantively reasonable where there are legitimate distinctions to support defendant's sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Arnold" on Justia Law

Defendants Green and Hayes were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, as well as possessing, brandishing, and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Hayes was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendants' conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine; defendants failed to establish that they had withdrawn from the conspiracy; the evidence was sufficient to convict Hayes for being a felon in possession of a firearm; even assuming that defendants are correct that the delay in securing a search warrant was a Fourth Amendment violation, admission of evidence from the cellular phones was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; as to the third conviction, possessing, brandishing, and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, the court found that the government introduced sufficient evidence independent of that introduced pursuant to the May 14, 2014 search such that any error in the admission of that evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning its sanctions and allowing in some evidence of what was recovered in the May 14, 2014 search; and the district court did not err in refusing a jury instruction or argument on justification under these facts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The district court ruled that defendant was ineligible for a reduction because his sentence was based on a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, not on a retroactively amended sentencing guidelines range. The court concluded that defendant's contention is factually flawed where his (C) agreement neither recited an applicable guidelines range of 188-235 months, nor recited facts sufficient to determine that this was the applicable range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bogdan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for distributing methamphetamine and heroin, arguing that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because he did not unequivocally state his intent to proceed pro se. In this case, defendant refused to state whether he wished to be represented at trial by counsel, either appointed or retained, or to represent himself. The court concluded that, given the district court’s thorough and repeated explanation of the dangers of self-representation, the court's decision in United States v. Sanchez-Garcia applies. In Sanchez-Garcia, the court held that by repeatedly rejecting all options except self-representation, after having been warned of the consequences, the defendant necessarily chose self-representation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Conklin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition and the district court's denial of his renewed motion for acquittal. The court concluded that the government did not constructively amend the indictment where the evidence presented at trial did not create a “substantial likelihood” that defendant was convicted of an uncharged offense because the individual components of ammunition were necessarily included in the indictment language; the evidence was sufficient for the government to establish that the ammunition seized from defendant was in or affecting interstate commerce; ammunition assembled from components which had traveled in interstate commerce was in commerce for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) even though the ammunition itself had been assembled intrastate; and, in this case, the propellent powder component manufactured in interstate commerce is sufficient to satisfy the Commerce Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Ghana and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was convicted of three counts of medical assistance fraud in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.466. DHS commenced removal proceedings based on the ground that petitioner was removable because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The BIA agreed and ordered petitioner removed to Ghana. Petitioner seeks review of the BIA's decision. In this case, there is one conviction, and the total loss is directly tied to three specific fraud counts “covered by the conviction.” The court need not decide whether totally unrelated fraud counts in a single conviction may be aggregated. As the BIA recognized, petitioner's three fraud counts of conviction were part of a sufficiently interrelated fraud to warrant aggregation, whether or not the criminal complaint included an express allegation of conspiracy or scheme to defraud. Likewise, the order to pay an aggregated restitution amount demonstrated that petitioner did not commit multiple, unrelated frauds. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Sokpa-Anku v. Lynch" on Justia Law