Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appeals his sentence of 360 months in prison for the production and attempted production of child pornography. The court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where he was sentenced within the advisory guidelines; the district court specifically noted that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; and a medical evaluation performed in advance of sentencing characterized defendant’s alleged mental difficulties as malingering. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Clarke" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual abuse and three counts of abusive sexual contact. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a fourth witness's testimony under FRE 414 where the testimony is probative and tends to show propensity, and where the fact that the testimony was cumulative does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the testimony. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a life sentence, which was within the Guidelines range, where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. St. Claire" on Justia Law

Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress his recorded post-arrest statements where defendant's voluntary statements made alone in the squad car near the alleged crime scene with the video-recording device turned on and before defendant was Mirandized were admissible. The court also concluded that there was substantial evidence to prove that defendant possessed the firearm. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bailey" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of all nine counts of a federal indictment. Defendant's charges stemmed from his involvement in two carjackings. The court concluded that defendant failed to address whether the photographic lineup was suggestive and unnecessary; the Sixth Amendment did not forbid law enforcement from questioning him on the carjackings; the court rejected defendant's argument that there is insufficient proof to sustain the gun-related convictions; and there was sufficient evidence to establish that he participated in the carjackings. The court also concluded that defendant's 768 month sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment where the district court considered the physically threatening nature of his crimes, the use of deadly weapons in committing the crimes, and his degree of involvement in the crimes all negate an inference of gross disproportionality. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where defendant was sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines range and defendant does not rebut the presumption of reasonableness of his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

The FPD appealed the district court's order compelling Terry McAtee, an Assistant Federal Public Defender, to reveal communications that he had with his client, Randy Beltramea. McAtee represented Beltramea, who had been indicted for fraud and subsequently entered into a plea agreement. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the FPD, on behalf of McAtee, moved the district court to quash the subpoena and then immediately appealed the district court's denial. McAtee has yet to refuse compliance and he has not been held in contempt, a final judgment that he has a right to appeal. Therefore, subsequent appellate review is not impossible. View "United States v. Beltramea" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's motion to suppress the packages of methamphetamine gathered during the search of his vehicle. In this case, defendant gave the officers unqualified consent to search; defendant did not object or otherwise withdraw his consent when an officer indicated that the search would continue at a second location or that the car wheel would be removed; and therefore the officers reasonably could have concluded that defendant’s consent extended to the continued search at headquarters. The court also concluded that the officers had probable cause to drill into the trunk to reach the hidden compartment. Accordingly, the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Zamora-Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to one count of robbery and aiding and abetting robbery and one count of conspiracy to commit robbery, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 57 months in prison. The court concluded that the district court did not err in declining to adjust defendant's offense level downward based on a mitigating role in the offense pursuant to USSG 3B1.2 because defendant did not meet his burden to show that he was substantially less culpable than either of his codefendants. The court also concluded that the district court did not impermissibly rely on facts in a presentence report because defendant did not make a clear and specific objection. Therefore, the district court did not plainly err in relying on those facts when determining defendant's sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Waddell, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of laundering and conspiring to launder money, and making a false statement. Defendant had laundered drug proceeds received from his brother-in-law, Brandon Lusk, through his law firm, and then lied to an IRS agent about his financial arrangements with Lusk. When Lusk was investigated by authorities, defendant acted as his lawyer and advised him to hide the nature of their financial relationship. The court concluded that the district court acted well within its discretion to rule that a question implying that defendant had associated with a person later charged with criminal activity, even if improper, did not require a new trial. In this case, the question was half-finished and unanswered. Moreover, the other inculpatory evidence the jury heard was extensive. The court also concluded that the district court properly considered the fact that defendant put his own personal interests ahead of his clients, and that this factor was enough to justify the sentence imposed, even if it resulted in a sentence that was harsh in comparison to others involved in the drug trafficking operation. Finally, there is no indication that the district court punished defendant more harshly because he was a lawyer. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boedigheimer" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of 11 counts related to conspiracy and distribution of cocaine and heroin. On remand, the district court made the necessary findings and reduced the drug sentence by 12 months for a total sentence of 336 months' imprisonment. Defendant subsequently challenged the denial of his motion for a two-level sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines. The court concluded that the district court exercised its discretion and expressly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, recounting the nature and seriousness of defendant's offense. In this case, the district court properly exercised its discretion in choosing to give more weight to the aggravating factors, such as defendant's criminal history, rather than his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Granados" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to possession of child pornography. The district court concluded that defendant's prior conviction under Iowa law for indecent contact with a child in 1982 qualified as a predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2), and sentenced defendant to 120 months’ imprisonment. Section 2252(b)(2) requires a mandatory minimum term of ten years’ imprisonment for any person who violates 2252(a)(4) and who has a prior conviction “under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.” The court concluded that defendant's argument that his prior conviction for indecent contact with a child does not satisfy the definitions of aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual contact found in a separate statutory chapter (Chapter 109A), is foreclosed by United States v. Sonnenberg. Accordingly, the court rejected defendant's remaining contentions and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Krebs" on Justia Law