Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant appealed his 360 month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base. The court concluded that the district court properly applied a three-level role enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b) because defendant was a manager or supervisor in the conspiracy, a two-level enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(2) for the use of violence, and a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2D1.1 for maintaining his residence for substantial drug-trafficking activities. Finally, the court explained that it need not consider defendant's claim that the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity because, even if the district court erred, such error would be harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sykes" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), to 200 months in prison. The Supreme Court subsequently invalidated the residual clause of the ACCA in Johnson v. United States, and the district court vacated defendant's original sentence, imposing a 120-month sentence. On appeal, defendant challenged his revised sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err by imposing a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of the firearm in connection with another felon. The court also concluded that any error in the classification of his prior conviction for third-degree non-residential burglary under Minnesota law was harmless because the district court expressly determined it would have imposed the same sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Pate" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 180 month sentence and conviction for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The court concluded that petitioner waived any objection to the district court's admission of Attachment B of the cooperation agreement; the district court committed no error in not declaring a mistrial sua sponte, because trial counsel could not have testified that defendant's prior attorney made prior inconsistent statements because trial counsel never confronted the attorney with his prior inconsistent statements; and the court rejected defendant's claim that sufficient evidence exists to support his public-authority defense. Finally, the court rejected defendant's challenges to his sentence, claiming that the district court erred in denying his motion for retesting the purity of the methamphetamine and his motion for reconsideration of the denial of that motion; the district court erred in applying an obstruction-of-justice enhancement; and the district court erred in denying him an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

Petitioner plead guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana and possessing with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Petitioner sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing and this court granted a certificate of appealability (COA). The court concluded that petitioner failed to show a substantial likelihood that he would have accepted the offer to plead guilty pursuant to the more favorable terms offered prior to the suppression hearing. Consequently, petitioner has not proven that counsel's advice prejudiced his defense. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's section 2255 petition without an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Allen v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the drug evidence. The court concluded that the officer in this case was faced with circumstances that, as a whole, were sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion necessary to justify extending the traffic stop. The court also concluded that the traffic stop in this case exceeded neither the constitutional boundaries set forth in the court's then-extant decisions nor those set forth in Rodriguez v. United States. In this case, the traffic stop was not impermissibly expanded or prolonged, the passenger's consent to search the truck was valid, the continued detention to search the truck pursuant to that consent was permissible, and the ensuing search of the truck was lawful. The court further concluded that, under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the officer was permitted to search every part of the vehicle and its contents that could conceal drug-related contraband, including the air compressor. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. Finally, the court concluded that the district court exceeded its authority under 18 U.S.C. 3583(d) when it ordered that defendant be removed as a special condition of supervision. The court modified the judgment to reflect the change in the special condition. As modified, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Murillo-Salgado" on Justia Law