Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was found guilty of bank robbery and sentenced to 240 months in prison. The court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting testimony that he had discarded a firearm several weeks before the credit union robbery where evidence of this prior bad act is relevant and any potentially prejudicial effect of the challenged testimony did not substantially outweigh its probative value. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial where the district court properly instructed the jury to disregard the "shots fired" testimony; the district court did not err in admitting alleged hearsay testimony of several witnesses describing statements made by codefendant, who did not testify at trial; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony of codefendant's teenage daughter who stated that she was present when defendant and codefendant discussed robbing a bank and that she was present in the motel room after the robbery; the court rejected defendant's remaining evidentiary arguments; and, in light of the district court's unequivocal statement that it would impose a 240-month sentence notwithstanding its application of the career offender provision, any error in applying the career offender provision is harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lomas" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. Because defendant redistributed drugs over a long period of time with knowledge of his suppliers, and enjoyed social benefits from those distributions, it was reasonable for a jury to conclude that he knowingly and voluntarily joined a conspiracy to distribute, and that he shared a common purpose with his coconspirators. Finally, the court concluded that, by expressly agreeing to the district court’s proposed treatment of the buyer-seller defense, defendant waived any objection to the district court’s refusal to use his alternative jury instruction proposal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of firearms by a convicted felon and sentenced to 210 months in prison. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on defendant's perjury under USSG 3C1.1; the district court did not err in denying defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility where, absent extraordinary circumstances, obstruction of justice ordinarily indicates that the defendant, such as in this case, has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct; the evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to conclude that defendant knowingly possess the firearms; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based on inconsistent verdicts where a jury may acquit a defendant as to one or more charges for any number of reasons and yet come to the reasonable conclusion that defendant was guilty of other related charges. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and analogues of controlled substances, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea where the record contains sufficient circumstantial evidence of defendant's knowledge that he knew the product that he was selling was illegal, that he knew it was a controlled substance, or that he knew the chemical composition of the product. Furthermore, given the nature of the product and the fact that defendant and his suppliers structured the transactions using money orders, which do not create records of the transactions, the district court could reasonably conclude that there was at least a “tacit understanding” between defendant and his suppliers to launder money. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Qattoum" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 75-month sentence after being convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. After reviewing the record, the court could not tell whether the district court relied on the residual clause or the force clause to determine that defendant's prior offenses were crimes of violence. Although defendant could not prevail on this appeal if the district court sentenced him under the Guidelines's residual clause, he could if the district court sentenced him under the force clause. Since the record does not reveal which provision guided the district court's decision, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Laquince Hogan, convicted of drug-related offenses, appealed the denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that there was no “reasonable probability” that the contents of the Crown Royal bag at issue would have been suppressed had trial counsel filed a motion to suppress because the inevitable-discovery exception would have rendered the bag’s contents admissible. In this case, Hogan suffered no prejudice under Strickland v. Washington and Hogan's ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hogan v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks authorization to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) pursuant to Johnson v. United States. Petitioner challenges a sentence that was imposed in 2008 after the district court applied the career-offender sentencing guideline, USSG 4B1.1, in calculating his advisory sentencing range. Petitioner argues that the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2), likewise, is unconstitutionally vague and the constitutional rule that he proposes should be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. The court denied the motion, concluding that petitioner's motion urges the creation of a second new rule that would apply Johnson and the constitutional vagueness doctrine to a provision of the advisory sentencing guidelines. The court concluded that the successive motion should not be certified “to contain” a new rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court as required by section 2255(h)(2). View "Donnell v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant alleged that police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his backpack without a warrant. The court concluded that, based on the evidence presented, the district court did not err in concluding that defendant abandoned his backpack when he left it in a vehicle in order to flee from law enforcement officers, and relinquished any reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Nowak" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and was sentenced to 97 months in prison. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in a scheme to defraud his employer by means of false invoices from companies created by his friends. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a four level sentencing enhancement for defendant's role as an "organizer or leader" of the conspiracy pursuant to USSG 3B1.1(a). In this case, the nature of defendant's participation in the conspiracy was central and significant, he "concocted" the scheme, he exercised decision making authority, and he admitted to having a high degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Coles" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to distributing heroin within 1,000 feet of an elementary school after a prior felony drug conviction. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court concluded that the district court understood that the plea agreement was not binding and that defendant was eligible for a discretionary sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). Furthermore, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding the particular circumstances of defendant's case did not warrant a reduction where the district court considered the nature and seriousness of the offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law