Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was found guilty of corruptly obstructing administration of the internal revenue laws, willfully subscribing to false federal tax returns, and mailing a false negotiable instrument to a state agency with intent to commit fraud. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself at trial. The court concluded that the district court erred in ruling that defendant's pretrial request was untimely; erred in treating counsel's motion to withdraw as effectively seeking review of the magistrate judge's prior order revoking defendant's pro se statuts; erred in basing its decision on its conclusion that defendant made improper arguments; and erred in concluding that defendant's failure to respond to the government’s proposed jury instructions and plea offer, to submit a statement of the case, and to “confer” with government counsel about these issues were violations of the district court’s pretrial order that amounted to the “serious obstructionist misconduct” referred to in Faretta v. California. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his eight-month sentence for wire fraud, and challenged the district court's finding of a loss amount of $194,869 and the resulting restitution award. The court concluded that the loss amount was not clearly erroneous because it was a reasonable estimate supported by a preponderance of the evidence; the restitution award was based on a reasonable estimate of loss and not clearly erroneous; defendant has already been released after serving his sentence; and, even if the issue were not moot, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Aden" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of transportation of a minor for prostitution and sentenced to 250 months in prison. The court concluded that evidence of the victim's sexual behavior after the time of the offense was properly precluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 412; the district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403 in admitting evidence of defendant's characterization, or name calling, of the victim; the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant’s offense of conviction involved conduct described in 18 U.S.C. 2241(a); under the Guidelines, defendant’s appropriate base offense level was 30; because USSG 2A3.1(b)(1) prescribes a four-level enhancement for an offense that involved conduct described in 18 U.S.C. 2241(a), the enhancement was also appropriate; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a five-level enhancement under USSG 4B1.5(b) for engaging in a “pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Wardlow" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his revocation sentence of 51 months in prison. In this case, the district court had the power to sentence defendant, as a probation violator within the range of sentences available at the time of his initial sentencing, although the district court was not required to do so. The court held that the district court did not plainly err by sentencing defendant within the Guidelines range applicable at his original sentencing, which was calculated using a criminal history category of VI. Furthermore, the court concluded that the district court's remarks at sentencing do not suggest that it lengthened defendant's sentence to promote rehabilitation. Therefore, the district court did not commit plain error under Tapia v. United States. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in imposing the sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Holdsworth" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to 14 counts of failing to pay the IRS the full amount of his employees' tax withholdings and was sentenced to 51 months in prison. The court concluded that, in applying a four-level leadership enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(a), the district court failed to make the required finding that defendant organized or led at least one other participant in the criminal scheme to justify the four-level enhancement. Accordingly, the court remanded the case to provide the district court the opportunity to clarify whether defendant organized or led at least one other participant, and to identify what evidence in this record supports that finding View "United States v. Musa" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition as time-barred. In this case, petitioner failed to take any action to pursue his federal habeas rights even though it became clear that his hired attorney was not effectively pursuing the available remedies. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that the petition was time-barred by 28 U.S.C. 2244(d) because petitioner did not act diligently in pursuing his rights. The court affirmed the judgment and denied equitable tolling. View "Williams v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm that was seized from his parked car without a warrant during a late night investigation of possible criminal activity. The court agreed with the district court that the officer had reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot when he pulled in behind the vehicle - parked in an abandoned carwash parking lot late at night with its lights on - to investigate what the car’s occupants might be doing in this high-crime area; when the officer saw defendant, a known felon, standing by another car in the dark carwash bay, he reasonably believed that he was in a dangerous situation; the officer's reasonable concern for safety justified his entering an open bay in an abandoned carwash to see whether other persons were hiding in a car where a dangerous suspect was seen engaging in suspicious activity; having justifiably entered the carwash bay, the officer's action in shining his flashlight to illuminate the interior of defendant's car did not violate the Fourth Amendment; and the marijuana and firearm were in plain view. Therefore, because there was no unlawful search and seizure of contraband seen in plain view in defendant's car, his contention that other evidence should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree necessarily fails. The court also concluded that defendant's claim that the magistrate should have recused herself was not preserved for review. Finally, the court rejected defendant's jury challenge and affirmed the judgment in its entirety. View "United States v. Evans" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's revocation of his supervised release and sentence of 8 months in prison followed by 4 years of supervised release. The court concluded that defendant admitted to violating rules of the reentry center, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting his justification for his actions; the district court permissibly found defendant received and signed a copy of the facility’s rules; the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his supervision where the district court found that defendant expressed a stubborn unwillingness to comply with the conditions of his supervised release; defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable; the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within the range recommended by the Sentencing Commission for a typical revocation offender; and it was not plain error for the district court to require defendant to reside at such a center again in the hope of better performance after his renewed incarceration. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kimball" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to disposing of a firearm to a convicted felon and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the firearm, which was seized during a warrantless search of his vehicle. The court concluded that the district court properly denied the motion because the search was constitutionally proper under the automobile exception. In this case, information that defendant might be armed was sufficiently corroborated and what the officers observed provided a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in the vehicle. Therefore, the officers had probable cause to make an immediate warrantless search under the well-established automobile exception. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Shackleford" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (count one) and possession of an illegal firearm (count two) after law enforcement officers seized three firearms and 374 rounds of ammunition from a shed owned by his father. On appeal, defendant argued that the Fourth Amendment required the officers to obtain a warrant before entering and searching the shed where the evidence was seized. The court concluded that, having heard uncontradicted testimony from three credible officers that defendant both authorized and facilitated the search of the shed, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wolff" on Justia Law