Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to assault with intent to commit murder (Count I) and use of a firearm during a crime of violence (Count II). On appeal, defendant seeks dismissal of Count II. The court concluded that defendant's challenge under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B), Count II, is the very type of statute that the Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States explained would not be unconstitutionally vague under its holding. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss Count II and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Prickett" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of two firearms and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his pretrial motion to suppress the firearms during the two searches. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized in the first search where defendant cites no case - and the court has found none - ruling that a threat to search and a reach transformed a Terry stop into an arrest. In this case, the officers’ threat to perform a protective search, when they had reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous, coupled with a reach, did not transform the lawful Terry stop into a full-blown arrest. In regard to the second search, the court concluded that the district court did not err when it ruled that the officers had probable cause to arrest defendants and to conduct a search incident to arrest that uncovered the firearm. The arresting officers knew that defendant had prior actual oral notice that he could not lawfully enter or remain on the LU campus. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after removal following his conviction for aggravated felonies. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court concluded, having thoroughly reviewed the record, that there is no sentencing error, plain or otherwise. In this case, the record makes clear that the sentencing judge listened to each of defendant's sentencing arguments, considered the supporting evidence, responded appropriately, and gave a reasoned basis for defendant's below-Guidelines sentence. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable, and the district court did not abuse its substantial sentencing discretion by refusing to impose an even shorter sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Torres-Ojeda" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of tax evasion and sentenced to 51 months in prison, as well as three years of supervised release. Defendant contends that he was entitled to present provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and other material to the jury for the purpose of supporting a mistaken-belief defense. The court affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings, concluding that the right to present a complete defense does not entitle a defendant to present the jury with evidence that is either irrelevant or is properly excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The court concluded that Special Condition 13, which requires that defendant refrain from creating or establishing any new websites and that he remove any of his currently existing websites, and Special Condition 14, which bans defendant from using or possessing computing devices without prior written approval from a probation officer and requires him to consent to searches of any computer he is permitted to possess, are both overly broad. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings but vacated the challenged special conditions of supervised release and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. West" on Justia Law

Defendants Valencia and Rangel-Ortega appealed their sentences after pleading guilty to several drug-related offenses. The district court sentenced Valencia to 292 months’ imprisonment and Rangel-Ortega to 240 months’ imprisonment. The court concluded that Rangel-Ortega's appeal falls within the scope of his appeal waiver, the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily; and the enforcement of the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court turned to the merits of Valencia's appeal based on a misstatement given by the magistrate judge. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err when it found that Valencia acted as a manager or supervisor for the drug-distribution ring and the court upheld the district court's decision to apply the three-level enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed Valencia's sentence and dismissed Rangel-Ortega's appeal. View "United States v. Valencia" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted as a principle for arson of a building used in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 844(i) ("Count I"); mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 ("Count II"); wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 ("Counts III–V"); and arson in connection with a federal felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 844(h) ("Count VI"). The district court sentenced defendant to five terms of imprisonment of 70 months on Counts I–V, to run concurrently, and one term of imprisonment of 120 months on Count VI, to run consecutive to the 70-month terms. Defendant appealed. The court declined to review defendant's Double Jeopardy Clause claim because he failed to show good cause for his untimely motion; any error in admitting the photographs at issue is harmless where the photographs had little or no influence on the verdict and thus did not affect defendant's substantial rights; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial where there was no reversible error as to defendant's alleged jury-instruction error; and there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Schropp" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the revocation of her term of supervised release after serving a prison sentence for committing disaster benefits fraud. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony from a probation officer with respect to an Arizona investigation of a fraudulent money transfer. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in admitting the record from Navy Federal Credit Union to Veridian Credit Union that identified the $4,000 transfer to defendant’s account as likely fraudulent. Finally, the evidence was sufficient to find that she committed wire fraud, failed to answer questions truthfully, and failed to notify her probation officer of a change in employment. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Protsman" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two charges arising from an armed bank robbery that resulted in the death of a bank security guard, moved to vacate his death sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 on several grounds. The district court denied petitioner's motion and this court granted a certificate of appealability on one question: whether petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to object to the empaneling of an anonymous jury. The court concluded that counsel’s failure to argue for an extension of the law to forbid the jury procedures in petitioner’s case did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel where, considering the state of the law at the time of trial concerning whether a jury was properly characterized as "anonymous," it was not professionally unreasonable for counsel to forego an objection to the district court’s procedure for identifying the jurors. Furthermore, where a movant unsuccessfully attacked counsel’s performance for failing to anticipate Apprendi v. New Jersey, no evidentiary hearing was necessary to resolve the claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Allen v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle. The court concluded that the search was a valid probation search supported by reasonable suspicion. In this case, the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress where defendant's outstanding warrants, missed probation appointments, and previous admissions by defendant indicating he was involved in illegal drug activity, along with statements from drug task force officers and others about defendant’s ongoing drug activity, gave his probation officer reasonable suspicion that defendant was breaking the law and violating his probation. Accordingly, the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rodriquez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence and conviction for multiple offenses related to immigration fraud and government-benefits fraud. The court concluded that, assuming Kungys v. United States applies to criminal prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. 1425(a), the district court's instruction fairly and adequately submitted the “materiality” issue to the jury; the court found equally unavailing defendant’s argument that the district court’s instructions did not adequately explain the “procured by” requirement outlined in Kungys; and the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the attempted naturalization-fraud counts, false use of a social security number and aggravated identity theft counts, fraudulent receipt of health care benefits count, and four counts of mail fraud. The court held, however, that the district court erred when it found that the April 13 mailing supported a mail-fraud conviction. However, because the sentence for this conviction ran fully concurrently with defendant’s 63-month sentence on multiple properly obtained counts of conviction - including seven other mail fraud counts - the court did not disturb the prison sentence. Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the remaining counts; defendant's sentence was reasonable; and the district court did not err by enhancing her sentence under USSG 2B1.1(b)(2)(A) because her offense involved at least 10 victims. View "United States v. Nguyen" on Justia Law