Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant plead guilty to one count of failure to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to 57 months in prison. Even assuming that the categorical approach does apply, the court concluded that the district court committed no plain error by not applying that approach to defendant's prior convictions to determine his appropriate tier classification. In this case, during his change-of-plea hearing, defendant agreed with the government's recitation of the facts that although he was required to register as a sex offender, he had failed to do so as of January 29, 2015. Defendant's admission constitutes a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea. Even if the court were to consider defendant's duty to register as a sex offender between June 19, 2014, and January 30, 2015, as a purely legal question, the district court committed no plain error in not applying a categorical approach to defendant's California convictions where the court lacked controlling precedent on the question of whether a circumstance-specific approach or categorical approach is applicable to the three tier classifications set forth in 42 U.S.C. 16911(2), (3), and (4); the court's United States v. Hill decision indicates that such an approach does not apply in other subsections of the same statute; and (3) the court's sister circuits have had difficulty in determining whether the circumstance-specific or categorical approach applies to section 16911(2), (3), and (4). Finally, the court found that the district court plainly erred in calculating defendant's total offense level as 23 and thus defendant is entitled to resentencing. View "United States v. Mulverhill" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of conspiring to distribute, possessing with the intent to distribute, and distributing methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 96 months in prison. The court concluded that the district court's application of a two-level increase, pursuant to USSG 3C1.1, for obstruction of justice was justified where defendant lived abroad and resettled across the country, delaying the resolution of his case by almost a decade. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant a two-level decrease in his sentence for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to USSG 3E1.1(a), where defendant put the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential elements of guilt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Chavez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder of his parents in Indian country and the district court imposed two consecutive life sentences. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter where a rational jury could not have acquitted defendant of first- and second-degree murder and convicted him of involuntary manslaughter. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable, findings of premeditated murder were not clearly erroneous, defendant's sentence is within the guidelines range, and the district court did not abuse its substantial sentencing discretion in imposing an admittedly harsh within-guidelines sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lasley, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to four counts of wire fraud. The court concluded that, because the district court did not apply one of the two total offense levels specifically contemplated by the plea agreement, defendant's appeal waiver does not preclude this appeal. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that defendant's post-plea conduct was inconsistent with a finding that he had accepted responsibility for his offenses. The court concluded, however, that it must reverse and remand so that the district court may determine in the first instance whether M.U. was a victim under the Guidelines and, if necessary, proceed to resentencing. The court further concluded that the district court did not plainly err when determining the amount of restitution owed to A.B. and R.W. Finally, the court declined to consider defendant's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Binkholder" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to order disclosure of the co-conspirator's presentence reports, and the court held that defendant is not entitled to relief under Brady v. Maryland; because defendant failed to show justifiable dissatisfaction, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for new counsel; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it proceeded with the venire panel after one venireperson said that she was familiar with defendant's family and their distribution of methamphetamine; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that defendant was involved in the assault of a co-conspirator where the evidence was relevant and the district court gave mitigating instructions; and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's money laundering conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pendleton" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence and imposition of a life sentence. The court concluded that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress where defendant was not seized and moved freely about the yard during the conversation in which he disclaimed any interest in the house and vehicle. Defendant's challenge to his life sentence also fails where he sustained two prior felony drug convictions, and was convicted in this case for conspiring to traffic at least 500 grams of methamphetamine. There is no dispute that defendant was subject to a mandatory life sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A). The court has ruled on numerous occasions that the imposition of a mandatory life sentence under that statute does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Camberos-Villapuda" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to sell drug paraphernalia, conspiracy to distribute Schedule I controlled substances, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and being a felon in possession of ammunition, as well as the associated forfeiture. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that probable cause supported the search warrants, and in denying defendant's motion to suppress. In this case, the undercover buys, in combination with the financial information, provided probable cause to believe that evidence of one or more crimes would be found at defendant's shops and at his home. The court concluded that the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the convictions on Counts 1-3 charged in the indictment, but was insufficient for the jury to find that defendant had knowingly possessed ammunition that had been transported in interstate commerce (Count 4). Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in entering the preliminary order of forfeiture against defendant's property. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition and affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Ways, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of possession of firearms by a prohibited person - a user of a controlled substance - in violation of 18 U.S.C 922(g)(3), and waived the right to appeal nonjurisdictional issues. On appeal, defendant argued that section 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional because the terms "unlawful user" of a controlled substance and "addicted to" a controlled substance are vague. The court affirmed defendant's conviction. Though it is plausible that these terms could be unconstitutionally vague under some circumstances, defendant does not argue, and has not shown, that either term is vague as applied to his particular conduct of possessing firearms while regularly using marijuana. Under the court's case law, defendant's facial challenge cannot succeed without such a showing. View "United States v. Bramer" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to sexual exploitation of children and to commission of a felony offense involving a minor while being required to register as a sex offender. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 480 months in prison. Given the district court's explicit statement that it would have sentenced defendant to 480 months in prison even if an error in the Guidelines calculation were found, the court concluded on this alternative ground that any error would be harmless. The court also concluded that defendant's within-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. In this case, that the repugnant aggravating factors were properly considered, reversal is not justified in light of the district court’s careful consideration of such factors, and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced defendant to 480 months or life imprisonment. View "United States v. Jauron" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's revocation of his term of supervised release. Special Condition Number 6 made it a condition that defendant must not possess obscene material as deemed inappropriate by the probation officer and/or treatment staff. The court concluded that defendant's claim that Special Condition Number 6 is unconstitutionally vague is foreclosed by precedent, (see Miller v. California); the condition is not overbroad because a ban on possessing obscene materials is narrower than a ban on possessing pornography or sexually explicit material; the district court did not commit plain error by phrasing the condition so that enforcement is triggered by a probation officer or member of the treatment staff; and because defendant has been convicted of a child pornography offense, a condition of supervised release properly may limit his constitutional rights; the district court applied the correct standard when it sanctioned him for possessing “inappropriate” materials without determining that they were obscene; and the district court adequately explained its decision to vary upward from the advisory guidelines range and impose the 24 month sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Anthony Key" on Justia Law