Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Two appeals were filed before this court five hours before Ledell Lee's scheduled execution. Lee challenged the district court's alleged denial of his motion requesting funds under 18 U.S.C. 3599(f) for "ancillary services to assist in the preparation of clemency and potential additional litigation." The court denied Lee's motion for stay of execution, concluding that Lee has failed to make a showing that there is a significant possibility that he will succeed on the merits of a claim that would deprive Arkansas of the authority to execute him. The court explained that, even if he succeeded on his section 3599(f) claim, Arkansas would still have the authority to execute him. View "Lee v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Four Arkansas death-row inmates appealed the denial of their motions for a preliminary injunction prohibiting their executions and moved the court for a stay of execution. The court concluded that, to the extent the inmates argued that Arkansas law, regulations, and policy during the clemency process violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this argument failed under well-established law; even if the inmates are correct that the Board failed to comply with Arkansas law, regulations, and policy, this in and of itself is insufficient to demonstrate a significant possibility of success on the merits; the district court was correct in determining that, despite the procedural shortcomings in the clemency process, the inmates received the minimal due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment; and the court rejected the inmates' claim that the district court abused its discretion in determining that their procedural impossibility claim "evaporated" at the moment the Board recommended against granting clemency. Accordingly, because the inmates have failed to show a significant possibility of success on the merits, the court denied the motion for a stay. View "Lee v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the revocation of his supervised release and 24 month sentence, arguing that his waiver of counsel and decision to proceed pro se were invalid. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that defendant made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent choice to represent himself at the revocation hearing. In this case, the magistrate judge had previously "strongly urged" defendant not to proceed pro se, defendant was well aware of the dangers of representing himself, defendant's age and extensive experience with the criminal justice system indicated that he was adequately equipped to make the decision to represent himself, and defendant had met with appointed counsel before the revocation hearing, although defendant never utilized him. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Owen" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder, endangering the welfare of a minor, and fleeing. The district court denied habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, but granted a certificate of appealability on whether petitioner had a substantial claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency hearing and failing to present mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase. The court found no evidence in the record that petitioner suffered a mental illness, and thus counsel was not deficient for failing to request a competency hearing. The court also concluded that counsel provided constitutionally adequate assistance despite not presenting potentially mitigating evidence of which she had not been apprised. In this case, had petitioner testified, the State would have attacked his credibility and introduced the details of his prior crimes. Furthermore, because petitioner would not permit his wife to testify, counsel had no other witness through which to present mitigating evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Slocum v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The district court entered stays of execution in an action brought by nine Arkansas prisoners under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The prisoners were all convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The court granted the State's motion to vacate the stays, concluding that the prisoners could have brought their section 1983 method-of-execution claim much earlier and intentionally declined to do so; the district court's conclusion concerning the use of midazolam in the Arkansas execution protocol did not apply the governing standard; the district court's factual findings would not support a conclusion that the prisoners have a likelihood of success in showing that the execution protocol is sure or very likely to cause severe pain; the court disagreed with the legal standard that the district court applied in determining whether alternative methods of execution are known and available; and, even assuming a risk of pain from the current method, the availability of the several methods cited by the district court is too uncertain to satisfy the rigorous standard under the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the court vacated the stays of execution. View "McGehee v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 36 month sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry into the United States after a previous removal and commission of an aggravated felony. The court concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error by applying a sixteen-level enhancement because defendant's prior conviction of domestic assault under Minn. Stat. 609.2242, subdivision 4, was a crime of violence. The court explained that this case was controlled by the reasoning in United States v. Schaffer, where this court determined that an act undertaken with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death necessarily involves a threatened use of physical force against the person of another. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Romero-Orbe" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for three offenses related to his participation in a marijuana trafficking scheme. Defendant procured, packaged, and sent marijuana from California to Nebraska for distribution. Defendant and his cousin used a joint bank account to deposit and withdraw funds derived from the conspiracy and disguised the nature of the funds. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of conspiracy to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana, money laundering, and racketeering. Accordingly, the court affirmed, the judgment. View "United States v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict; evidence about past events was properly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); the court agreed with the district court judge's determination that the investigation and prosecution of defendant's conspiracy offense occurred after she was U.S. Attorney and thus she had no conflict of interest and recusal was not required; the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines and made no clearly erroneous factual finding; and the sentence was substantively reasonable. Finally, the court granted counsel's motion to withdraw. View "United States v. Norwood" on Justia Law

Midamar Corporation and Jalel Aossey conditionally plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit several offenses in connection with a scheme to sale falsely labeled halal meat. William Aossey was convicted of conspiracy, making false statements on export certificates, and wire fraud in connection with the scheme. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss, arguing that Congress had reserved exclusive enforcement authority over the alleged statutory violations to the Secretary of Agriculture, and that the United States Attorney could not proceed against defendants in a criminal prosecution. The court rejected defendants' contention that two sections of the Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. 674 and 607(e), show that Congress removed these prosecutions from the jurisdiction of the district courts. Rather, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss, because Congress afforded the Executive two independent avenues to address false or misleading meat labeling. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Aossey, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 300 month sentence after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and attempt to obstruct justice. The court concluded that the district court did not rely on objected-to facts in the presentencing report to calculate the drug quantity; the relevant responsive evidence had already been produced at trial, which the Government relied on to meet its burden regarding drug quantity at sentencing; the district court did not clearly err in determining acts outside the scope of the conspiracy was relevant conduct; there was no error in relying on a witness's testimony because the testimony bore indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy; and, because of possible embellishment, the district court attributed only one pound of ice meth to defendant, discounting the others. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lawrence" on Justia Law