Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm and being a felon in possession of firearms. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 84 months in prison. The court concluded that defendant waived his challenge to the constitutionality of the Guidelines because he did not raise that issue in the district court. Even assuming defendant preserved the issue, defendant's argument on the merits is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Mistretta v. United States. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by applying a four-level enhancement for use or possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense - harassment in the first degree pursuant to Iowa Code 708.7(1)(b) - under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Finally, defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ewert" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for impersonating a foreign diplomatic officer and being a felon in possession of a firearm. In this case, defendant held himself out to be a diplomat of the "Conch Republic." The court concluded that, because a defendant need not purport to represent an “accredited” foreign government in order to be found guilty under 18 U.S.C. 915, the Government presented sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction. Based on this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant pretended to be an official of a foreign government in order to obtain a thing of value. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant under section 915. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly possessed the 12- gauge shotgun. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sterling" on Justia Law

Defendants Jack and Peter DeCoster pled guilty, as "responsible corporate officers" of Quality Egg, LLC, to misdemeanor violations of 21 U.S.C. 331(a) for introducing eggs that had been adulterated with salmonella enteritidis into interstate commerce. The language in the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 331, and Supreme Court precedent interpreting the statute support the conclusion that defendants are not required to have known that they violated the FDCA to be subject to the statutory penalties. The court concluded that this is not the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality. Moreover, defendants' three month prison sentences fell at the low end of the prescribed statutory range of 21 U.S.C. 333(a) (one year maximum), and the court has never held a sentence within the statutory range to violate the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court's sentences in this case do not violate the Eighth Amendment. The court also concluded that the sentences were procedurally reasonable where the district court did not clearly err by determining that the actions or inactions of defendants was insufficient and blameworthy under these circumstances; the district court did not clearly err in interpreting the evidence to show that defendants had failed to follow all of the expert recommendations; and the district court properly considered relevant past conduct and imposed substantively reasonable sentences on defendants. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. DeCoster" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 279-month sentence after pleading guilty to bank robbery, brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a bank robbery, and being a felon in possession. The court concluded that the district court adequately explained the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, and the district court's earlier-recounted statements about why it was imposing less than the high-end sentence that it had intended to impose adequately explained why it believed that a low-end sentence would be inadequate in light of defendant’s criminal history and his behavior during the bank robbery. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not commit procedural error, plain or otherwise, in sentencing defendant. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where, in light of defendant's conduct during the bank robbery and his criminal history, the district court’s decision to sentence him to fifteen months longer than the statutory minimum does not represent a clear error of judgment. Finally, the cases cited by defendant to support his sentencing-disparities argument involved defendants whose conduct and criminal histories are distinguishable from defendant's. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Clayton" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested following a reverse-sting operation conducted by the ATF. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment for outrageous government conduct and by refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment. The court found that the ATF's investigation in this case did not transgress the bounds of constitutionally permissible investigative methods. The governmental conduct here fell within this permissible law enforcement tradition where law enforcement targeted defendant because he was part of an established home-invasion robbery crew and the prosecution did not violate defendant's due process rights. The court agreed with the district court that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an entrapment instruction where there was clear evidence of defendant's predisposition to enter the agreement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Combs" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon and sentenced to 96 months in prison on remand. The court concluded that the district court was permitted to consider any relevant evidence that it could have received at defendant’s first sentencing hearing where the court's prior opinion did not address the issues raised on remand or limit the scope of the proceedings; the district court did not err in applying a sentencing enhancement pursuant to USSG 2K2.1 for weapons capable of accepting high capacity magazines; defendant was not entitled to notice of the guideline enhancement in the indictment pursuant to Alleyne v. United States; the district court did not err in applying an adjustment for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1 where defendant willfully testified falsely as to a material matter; the district court properly assessed three criminal history points based on a 1998 conviction; the district court did not commit error under FRCP 32 where the district court did not rely on personal knowledge or other information that was unavailable to defendant before the hearing; and the within-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Reid" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to distribution of cocaine base near a playground and was sentenced to 307 months in prison. Subsequently, in 2008, the district court retroactively applied two amendments to the Guidelines, Amendment 706 and Amendment 715, and exercised its discretion to grant defendant a reduction in his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. 1B1.10. In 2013, the district court denied defendant's motion to reduce his sentence again but advised that if defendant improved his disciplinary record and availed himself of educational courses within the prison system over the next three years, he could move the court for a sentence reduction at that time. Amendment 782 became effective November 1, 2014, and retroactively reduced most drug quantity base offense levels by two levels. In this appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of a sentencing reduction under Amendment 782. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its wide discretion in denying the sentence reduction where the district court took into consideration defendant's extensive criminal history and record of misconduct while incarcerated. The district court also considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to armed bank robbery while on federal supervised release from two other felony bank robbery convictions. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in ordering the consecutive sentences. In this case, the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, noting defendant's prior convictions for crimes of violence as well as the seriousness of his noncompliance and his continued lack of regard for the law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Valure" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to four counts of production of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged his 960-month sentence as substantively unreasonable. Defendant argued that the district court did not give enough weight to the fact that his starting and stopping of the video recording of him anally and vaginally penetrating a two-year-old child resulted in four separate counts of conviction, rather than one, for production of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in sentencing defendant where the district court said that conduct was the worst it had ever seen. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sholds" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of one count of assault and two counts of domestic assault by a habitual offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 117. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony of defendant's then girlfriend about the facts underlying his three prior tribal-court convictions for domestic abuse because the testimony was relevant to prove that the convictions had occurred and that she was a spouse or intimate partner; regardless of whether the testimony was relevant to prove that defendant's prior crimes constituted "any assault" under section 117, it was admissible for other purposes; and any prejudicial effect that the testimony might have had on the jury was mitigated by the district court's curative instruction. The court also concluded that, because the right of counsel does not apply in tribal-court proceedings, the use of defendant's prior tribal-court convictions as predicate offenses in a section 117(a) prosecution does not violate the Constitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Drapeau" on Justia Law