Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant plead guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 280 grams of crack cocaine and the district court sentenced him to 94 months in prison. The district court subsequently granted defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his sentence because the district court committed procedural sentencing error when it assigned three criminal history points to a 1992 conviction because the conviction fell outside the 15-year limitation period in USSG 4A1.2(e). At the resentencing hearing, the main issue was whether criminal history points should be assessed for this 2013 conviction. The district court concluded that the conviction counted, granted the government’s renewed motions for a substantial assistance reduction, applied the same 30% reduction to the bottom of defendant’s revised guidelines range, and resentenced him to 84 months in prison. The court concluded that, even if defendants 2013 conviction was not a “prior sentence” for purposes of section 4A1.2(a)(1), the district court could “justify an increased sentence by affirmatively identifying relevant conduct or events that occurred subsequent to the original sentencing proceedings.” Here, the conduct underlying the 2013 conviction was not relevant conduct where the 2013 conviction involved different drugs and “a time gap.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Tidwell" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court concluded that, although the district court did not calculate the amended guideline range in accordance with USSG 1B1.10(b)(1), any procedural error was harmless; it is not an abuse of discretion for the district court to adhere to its decision that a term of 120 months was appropriate, even with a modestly reduced advisory guideline range; and no greater explanation was required. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of transmitting a threat to injure through interstate communications, 18 U.S.C. 875(c), and threatening a federal employee with intent to retaliate, 18 U.S.C. 115(a)(1)(B). Defendant, a housekeeping aid at the V.A. hospital in Little Rock, called a V.A. Crisis Hotline and said he had a gun and was going to shoot his supervisor. The court concluded that the district court’s jury instruction defining the elements of a section 875(c) offense, though consistent with then-governing Eighth Circuit precedent, omitted the mens rea element now required by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Elonis v. United States. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the conviction. The court concluded, however, that section 115(a)(1)(B) applied to defendant’s threats to assault or murder his supervisor; that the jury was properly instructed regarding the mens rea element of this offense; and that the evidence was sufficient to convict. The court rejected defendant’s contentions that the district court committed errors relating to his entrapment defense, and plain error regarding an alleged patient-psychotherapist privilege. Accordingly, the court confirmed the section 115(a)(1)(B) conviction. View "United States v. Wynn" on Justia Law

The United States appealed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of a gun found in his pocket during a stop and frisk incident. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances support the officer’s reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in the criminal activity of possessing a firearm where he was a known felon and gang member, he was walking quickly through a high-crime area, and suspiciously looking around. Both officers in this case were familiar with past reports that defendant had a gun, a fellow gang member, and close friend, was admitted to the hospital with a gunshot wound just hours before, and the officers knew gang members often engaged in retaliatory shootings. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Roelandt" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 24-months in prison following the district court's revocation of his supervised release. The court concluded that the sentence imposed by the district court was both procedurally sufficient and substantively reasonable; the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering defendant to serve the federal revocation sentence consecutive to a state sentence that had not yet been imposed; Judge Harpool did not abuse his discretion in declining to recuse himself from this case where defendant failed to support his allegation of bias or prejudice by the judge; and the court declined to review defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 262 months in prison because he was subject to the mandatory-minimum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court held that defendant failed to make a valid and timely objection to the fact of his prior second-degree assault convictions, and the district court did not clearly err in basing his sentence on these prior convictions listed in the PSR. The court also held that second-degree assault under Minn. Stat. 609.222 requires the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another and therefore qualifies as a violent felony for ACCA purposes. Thus, the district court properly counted each of defendant's three second-degree assault convictions as ACCA predicates and sentenced him accordingly. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lindsey" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). The court agreed with the magistrate judge's determination that probable cause existed to support the GPS tracking warrant where, in considering the totality of the circumstances, the corroborated information established that the confidential reliable informant (CRI) was providing accurate information about verifiable details. The fact that those corroborated details were not about criminal activity does not subtract from the probable cause analysis. Furthermore, defendant's arguments about the geographical location of the vehicle or any possible state law violations are without merit. The court also concluded that the affidavits supporting the search warrant for the Hamline and Irving residences and the Avalanche vehicle established that there was a reasonable probability that a search of the premises and vehicle would lead to the discovery of evidence. Because the court found that there was probable cause based upon the affidavits to support issuance of the warrants, defendant's arguments about their anticipatory nature are without merit. The court further concluded that the CRI was correctly considered a "mere tipster" and disclosure of his identity was not required. Finally, the district court correctly found that the prior two drug convictions at issue were separate ACCA predicates. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Faulkner" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for attempted sexual exploitation of minors. The court concluded that defendant affirmatively waived his right to challenge whether the district court erred by permitting the jury to listen to the recorded interview with the victim. Waiver aside, the district court did not abuse its discretion, much less commit plain error, by allowing the jury to listen to the audio-recorded interview where the recording was properly admitted into evidence and defendant waived any foundational objections and defendant specifically stated that he had no objection to the admission of the recording. Finally, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse for assaulting his girlfriend, as well as related charges. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence, under FRE 409 and 413, of a prior sexual assault defendant committed against his former wife; there was no unfair prejudice other than the issue of spillover, which the district court's decision to sever resolved; and the district court further limited the alleged danger of the prior assault evidence by giving the jury a limiting instruction. The court concluded that defendant's expert witness's accident reconstruction testimony was properly excluded where it was not helpful as required by Rule 702; FRE 403 weighs against including the expert testimony in this case where evidence about how the girlfriend ended up in front of the car has minimal probative value; and defendant's attorney properly cross-examined the girlfriend. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a four-level enhancement for abduction under USSG 2A3.1(b)(5), and a two-level enhancement for physical restraint under USSG 3A1. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Strong, Sr." on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of several charges related to his use of counterfeit credit cards. The court concluded that, even assuming arguendo that the district court erred by permitting a special agent's testimony regarding whether certain conduct constituted the crime of identity theft, defendant failed to show that the error affected his substantial rights. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the Government to impeach his testimony with the credit and debit cards found in his wallet and with the rebuttal testimony of the special agent where the Government introduced the cards only to impeach defendant's claims that he did not have criminal intent and that he did not understand the difference between gift cards and credit cards. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rojas" on Justia Law