Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants Kenneth Ray Borders, Jon Dirk Dickerson, and Kyle Wayne Dickerson appealed their convictions for crimes involving stolen goods and vehicles. The convictions stemmed from defendants' participation in a conspiracy to steal commercial trucks, trailers, and cargo, and alter vehicle identification information. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances supports the single conspiracy finding where a jury could reasonably find a single conspiracy existed and each defendant a knowing member of it; there was sufficient evidence to convict Kyle for aiding and abetting the unlawful transportation of a stolen vehicle (Count 2), but insufficient evidence to convict Kyle for aiding and abetting the possession of stolen goods and vehicles (Count 18, 20, and 25); the court rejected defendants' evidentiary challenges; the district court did not commit plain error in applying the sentencing enhancement for the total loss exceeding $1 million under USSG 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), the "in the business" enhancement to Borders and Dickerson under USSG 2B1.1(b)(4), the "stolen vehicle" enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(4) and (14), the leader/organizer enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(a), and the "sophisticated means" enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(10); and the district court did not give Borders a disparate sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Borders" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to possessing pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and then appealed his 108 month sentence, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in reducing his sentence to the top of the amended Guidelines range. The court concluded that the district court adequately weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and examined defendant’s post-conviction conduct in determining his amended sentence; in this case, defendant nearly ran over an officer with his vehicle and drove his vehicle at extremely high rates of speed, putting lives in danger; the district court considered defendant's good post-conviction conduct; and the district court properly substituted the amended range while leaving all other guideline application decisions unaffected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Powers" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence after pleading guilty to voluntary manslaughter and assault with a dangerous weapon. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward under USSG 5K2.8 where defendant intentionally pushed the victim down the basement stairs, and after checking, left her there without help. The court concluded that defendant’s conduct was unusually heinous, cruel, brutal, or degrading to the victim. The court also concluded that the district court did not plainly err in departing upward under USSG 5K2.21, where defendant was aware of a serious risk of death to the victim when she pushed her down the stairs and left her immobilized with no medical assistance. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward under USSG 4A1.3, and the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Brave Bull" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant because he was sleeping in an unmarked van filled with copper pipes that was parked in a location known to be used in processing stolen scrap metal. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that the totality of the circumstances provided the officers with reasonable suspicion that the copper pipes in defendant's possession were stolen. The subsequent brief detention, questioning, and eventual arrest pursuant to outstanding warrants were therefore permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9). On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he had not sustained a qualifying prior conviction. The court concluded, based on the relevant judicial records under the required analytical approach, that defendant's prior conviction does not meet the definition of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” In this case, the judicial record does not establish that defendant necessarily was convicted of an assault that has the required element under section 922(g)(9). Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "United States v. Horse Looking" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 120 months in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. The court joined its sister circuits and concluded that United States v. Alleyne does not apply to safety-valve determinations provided in 18 U.S.C. 3553(f); the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant possessed the firearms and ammunition in connection with the drug offense; and the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court erred by denying a sentence reduction under USSG 3B1.2 where a reduction under this section would not have actually resulted in a lower sentence because defendant was sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months in prison. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Leanos" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for several drug-trafficking and firearm-related charges. The court concluded that the application and affidavit used to secure the wiretap satisfied the necessity requirement set forth in 18 U.S.C. 2518(1)(c); the search warrant application alleged a nexus between the place to be searched and money laundering operation; and therefore the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence derived from the search of the property. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the co-conspirator's testimony; the conspiracy counts were not misjoined with the firearm-related counts under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a); the district court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever; and there was substantial evidence that defendant was not acting in self defense when he fired on the SWAT team and the district court properly denied defendant's motion for acquittal for his conviction for assaulting a federal officer. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying a leadership role enhancement pursuant to USSG 3B1.1(a); no error in calculating the drug quantities involved; the sentence was substantively reasonable; and the life sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Colbert" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former police officer, appealed his conviction for willfully depriving Orville Hill of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a law enforcement officer. The court concluded that defendant's prior use of unreasonable force was relevant to prove that defendant acted willfully when he deprived Hill of his right to be free from unreasonable force; the circumstances of the prior act and of the charged crime were sufficiently similar to support an inference of criminal intent; and the prior incident was not so remote in time as to make it inadmissible. Furthermore, the government presented sufficient evidence to establish that defendant used unreasonable force in the prior incident; the probative value of the prior incident substantially outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice where the district court gave a limiting instruction regarding the prior incident; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video of the prior incident where any error was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boone" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree felony murder and sentenced to life in prison. Petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief, claiming that the state trial court erred when it admitted a statement he made to police while in custody because the police violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The state court determined that petitioner's admission to being at the crime scene was harmless because mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to establish that he aided or abetted criminal activity and it was cumulative to other evidence linking him to the crime scene. The court concluded that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision adjudicated the merits of petitioner's case, but did not result in a decision that was contrary to, or involved the unreasonable application of, clearly-established federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and denied the petition for habeas relief. View "Davis v. Warden" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal entry after removal and was sentenced to 84 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. The court concluded that the district court’s explanation of defendant's sentence was adequate where it listened to the parties’ arguments and determined that the circumstances did not warrant a downward variance. The court also concluded that the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court thought that defendant's offense conduct and criminal history warranted a sentence within the advisory range, and that the need for deterrence outweighed defendant’s pleas for leniency based on personal circumstances. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz" on Justia Law