Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for possession of child pornography. The court affirmed the district court's decision to admit evidence of defendant's prior acts of sexual abuse where the evidence that defendant sexually abused his younger sister when he was 17-years-old and sexually abused his 13-year-old daughter is probative of defendant's interest in underage girls, and defendant performed or possessed images depicting similar explicit acts on each victim. Moreover, for FRE 414 purposes, it does not matter that defendant’s prior sexual abuse of his sister occurred up to twenty years before the instant offense. The court also concluded that the district court did not err when it considered defendant’s prior conviction for sexual assault in applying the 18 U.S.C. 2252(b) sentencing enhancement where ACCA sentencing enhancements based on convictions for crimes committed as a juvenile do not violate the Eighth Amendment. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding one victim restitution, nor did the district court clearly err in determining the amount of the loss to be $500. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Emmert, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possessing an unregistered firearm and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence to permit the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly possessed firearms and knew the machine gun was a machine gun and an automatic firearm. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) where the firearm at issue had an obliterated serial number, even though defendant was acquitted of possessing a firearm with a serial number removed. The enhancement applied regardless of whether defendant knew or had reason to believe that the firearm had been altered or obliterated. Finally, the sentence was not substantively unreasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 92 months in prison, a sentence within and at the bottom of the guideline range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Grimes" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to embezzlement by a bank employee and was sentenced to 21-months in prison. Although defendant offered the sort of evidence that could have persuaded the district court to vary downward from the advisory Guidelines sentence, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to do so. After viewing defendant's exhibits and considering her arguments in light of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, the district court concluded that the nature and circumstances of defendant's offense gave insight into her character, namely that she endeared herself to her coworkers and employers, established trust with them, stole from them for four years, attempted to hide the embezzlement, and then denied that it occurred. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in this case and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kobriger" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the revocation of his supervised release following a hearing on violations of its conditions, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in relying on the results of a preliminary, field drug test to find that he committed a Grade B violation. United States v. Miller held that a district court may revoke a defendant's term of supervised release and impose a sentence of imprisonment if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his supervised release. In this case, the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant's field drug test result, taken together with the testimony at the hearing, proved a Grade B violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking defendant's supervised release and sentencing him in accordance with its finding that he had violated the condition not to possess controlled substances. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Salsberry" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the firearm. The court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant where the officers, while patrolling a high-crime area, observed defendant and others act suspiciously when another patrol car drove past. In this case, the officers decided to conduct the “pedestrian check” or “car check” because they reasonably believed defendant could be involved in an automobile theft or could have been hiding something illegal in the Taurus. Reasonable suspicion arose when the officers made the U-turn and reasonably believed that the Taurus had fled the scene at a high rate of speed. Considered with the other circumstances observed by the officers leading up to that moment, the officers were justified under the Fourth Amendment in stopping the fleeing Taurus to investigate whether criminal activity was afoot. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Dillard" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and subsequently appealed, arguing that the government violated the plea agreement. The court concluded that the language of the plea agreement permitted the government to argue against an acceptance of responsibility reduction. The court further concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for acceptance of responsibility where defendant sent threatening letters to cooperating codefendants and defendant denied relevant conduct by multiple objections to the PSR. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Torres-Rivas" on Justia Law

Rahsaan Taylor seeks federal habeas relief from his state court conviction for capital felony murder, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. Taylor alleged that counsel failed to present sufficient evidence at trial that Taylor was incapable of running at the time police witnesses testified that Taylor ran from them. The court agreed with the district court that the state court reasonably determined that Taylor was not prejudiced. Taking into account the numerous police officers’ identifications of Taylor as the runner, the final location of the stolen car, and the deficits in an orthopedic surgeon's testimony, the court found that reasonable jurists could agree that counsel’s failure to call Taylor's mother and the surgeon as witnesses did not have a reasonable probability of changing the outcome. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of Taylor's petition for habeas relief. View "Taylor v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, aiding and abetting copyright infringement, and aiding and abetting the trafficking of counterfeit goods. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his role as the owner of a flea market where vendors sold counterfeit goods. The court rejected defendant's argument that the statutes under which he was charged and convicted are unconstitutional as applied to him because he did not have fair notice that his behavior was criminal; it was unclear what he should have done to avoid liability; and law enforcement enforced the statutes arbitrarily. In this case, defendant was not merely a passive landlord who is merely renting his property. Rather, defendant was actively involved at his market, continually reminded his vendors that he was in charge, and even involved himself in regulating the prices of counterfeit goods. Even if defendant had been a less active landlord, a person of ordinary intelligence would reasonably understand that intentionally selling counterfeit products at a flea market, or willfully infringing copyrighted works at the market for financial gain, could result in criminal liability, and that intentionally aiding and abetting such conduct could result in the same. Furthermore, the evidence shows that defendant received actual notice that his conduct as the operator of the flea market was unlawful. The evidence showed that defendant both understood that his tenants were acting contrary to the law and actively helped to facilitate the unlawful conduct to his and his tenants’ financial benefit. In this case, defendant presents no reason to believe the statutes at issue did not clearly apply to him, and he fails to consider that although his arrest did not occur sooner, he was given numerous warnings over the years that his conduct violated the law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Frison, Sr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of fifteen or more counterfeit and unauthorized access devices. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress information discovered by law enforcement after officers seized credit, debit, and gift cards from defendant's vehicle and scanned the cards' magnetic strips. The court affirmed the district court's judgment and concluded that scanning the magnetic strips on the cards was not a physical intrusion into a protected area prohibited by the Fourth Amendment; defendant failed to show that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information in the magnetic strip; even if defendant had an actual, subjective expectation of privacy, the interest is not one society is prepared to endorse; and therefore, there was no search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Because all of the information in the magnetic strip should have been identical to the information in plain view on the front of the card, and where the cards were lawfully possessed by law enforcement officers and established to be counterfeit, the court cannot conclude that defendant had a privacy interest warranting further investigation into potential Fourth Amendment protections. View "United States v. DE L'Isle" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 151-month sentence for two counts of bank robbery. With no evidence presented to support the district court’s finding that defendant made a threat of death during the December 10 bank robbery, the court concluded that the application of the two-level threat of death enhancement was erroneous. However, defendant's sentence was not imposed as a result of the misapplication and therefore the error was harmless. In this case, the district court offered a thorough explanation for imposing the sentence that it did and in doing so, the district court never once mentioned the December 10 demand note, a gun, or a threat of death. The court also concluded that the sentence was reasonable where the district court thoroughly explained its reasoning in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence, and stated that the 151-month sentence was necessary to serve the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law