Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant, a taxidermist, pled guilty to one count of Lacey Act Trafficking in violation of 16 U.S.C. 3372(a)(1) and 3373(d)(1)(B), and was sentenced to 27 months in prison. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in the purchase and sale of a pair of black rhinoceros horns. The court concluded that the record supports the district court’s statement that defendant's actions contributed to establishing and furthering a market for black rhinoceros horns. In this case, defendant used false identification to purchase a pair of black rhinoceros horns and shipped the horns across the country, knowing they would be resold. The court concluded that defendant's bottom of the advisory Guidelines range sentence is reasonable and the district court thoroughly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including defendant’s criminal history and the effect the sentence would have on defendant’s relationship with his son. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hess" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to being a felon and unlawful drug user in possession of ammunition. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the ammunition recovered from his residence. The court concluded that the officer's entry onto the curtilage of defendant's residence was permissible under the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement. In this case, the officer was told that defendant had assaulted someone and was in the process of assaulting another in the basement of defendant's residence. View "United States v. Conerd" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for four counts of sexual abuse of a minor and one count of assault to his girlfriend resulting in serious bodily injury, all occurring in Indian country. Defendant's girlfriend died from her injuries twenty-one months after the assault. The minor is a relative of the girlfriend who was living with the couple. The court concluded that the minor's testimony was sufficient to support the sexual abuse convictions; the district court erred in admitting the hearsay statement of the girlfriend's former husband where the girlfriend had stated that defendant was the person who committed the assault, but the erroneous evidentiary ruling did not affect defendant’s substantial rights where the record as a whole, excluding the testimony, was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for the assault; the evidence amply supported the verdict; and, in regard to defendant's sentence of 293 months in prison, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying an upward departure under USSG 4A1.3 for inadequacy of criminal history category, and USSG 5K2.1 for conduct resulting in death. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stoney End of Horn" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm as a felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, alleging that the search of his vehicle violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that the officers violated his Fifth Amendment rights by questioning him without first obtaining a Miranda waiver. The court concluded that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion that justified extending the traffic stop and that the roughly twenty-minute wait for the canine did not convert the otherwise lawful stop into an unreasonable detention. The court rejected defendant's argument that law enforcement officers were required to cease questioning him when he refused to sign a waiver form. In this case, defendant did not refuse to answer questions or tell the officers that he did not want to speak with them at any point during either interview. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to five counts of distributing pure methamphetamine and one count of conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of pure methamphetamine within 1000 feet of a playground or school. Petitioner filed a motion to vacate or correct his 120-month sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had not challenged the government's calculation of the pure methamphetamine he had sold. In this case, petitioner pled guilty to distributing mixtures which in total contained 87.5 grams of pure methamphetamine. Petitioner shows no authority supporting his argument that the 10-year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) does not apply to him, or that his counsel was deficient in failing to dispute the government's calculation of pure methamphetamine he distributed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Herrera v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana. The district court subsequently denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and denied defense counsel's motion to withdraw. The court upheld the district court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the plea was based on defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where the claim directly contradicts the statements defendant made under oath at his guilty plea hearing. The court concluded that the district court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing where defendant's motion failed to put forth a fair and just reason to withdraw the plea, provided no specific facts supporting a claim of ineffective assistance, and was directly contradicted by his statements under oath at the change-of-plea hearing. Furthermore, the district court did not err by not appointing substitute counsel where the claim of conflict of interest is without merit. Finally, the district court did not improperly coerce defendant into withdrawing his objections to the PSR’s drug quantity findings, and did not err in adopting the PSR’s drug quantity calculation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Trevino" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murdering his ex-wife and kidnapping their three children, seeks habeas relief, arguing that the state trial court violated the Constitution when it refused to strike a juror as biased. The court concluded that the juror's response to a mental illness defense question, in isolation, is insufficient for petitioner to demonstrate that the state courts unreasonably determined that the juror was impartial. Even if the juror's statement amounted to a contradiction, the trial court was in a unique position to make the necessary credibility determination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Munt v. Grandlienard" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count 1) and for being a felon in possession of ammunition (Count 2). The court concluded that the district court did not err in excluding the dash camera video where defendant failed to show how not playing the video affected his substantial rights or had more than a slight influence on the verdict; the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding photographs taken by a defense investigator depicting the area where the police arrested defendant and found the firearm because defendant violated Rule 16(b)(1)(A) by failing to produce them to the government in pre-trial discovery, and defendant points to no controverted issues at trial that the inclusion of the photographs would have helped resolve; the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find defendant guilty of being a felon in possession of ammunition; but, the district court erred in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1) where his third degree domestic battery conviction cannot categorically be determined as a crime of violence under the force clause. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Eason" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and his sentence for receipt of child pornography and possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motion to withdraw his nolo contendere plea where the court found no fair and just reason to grant withdrawal. However, the court concluded that defendant's two convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because they arise out of the same act or transaction. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions for the district court to vacate one of defendant's convictions and to resentence him. View "United States v. Harvey" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and one count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's imposition of two conditions of supervised release requiring him to provide financial information to the Probation Office upon request and prohibiting him from incurring any new credit card charges or opening lines of credit without approval from the United States Probation Office. The court concluded that the record demonstrates that defendant's financial condition potentially has played a role in his criminal conduct. The court recognized that such conditions are not prohibition on behavior, but rather a monitoring device to complement other conditions. In this case, defendant faces an unpaid assessment and contribution to drug treatment costs, and the prohibition against incurring credit card debt or opening a new line of credit without Probation Office approval is reasonably related to the circumstances of the offense and deterring further criminal conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, finding that under these specific circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing these conditions. View "United States v. Hart" on Justia Law