Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant, a potato farmer, was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States, making false statements to influence the United States USDA, and making false statements to law enforcement. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his fraudulent insurance claim and disaster relief application certifying that his potato crop had been damaged by naturally occurring soft rot. The government ultimately paid out several hundred thousand dollars in indemnity and disaster relief. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions where a juror could find that he intentionally damaged the potatoes. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying sentencing enhancements based on obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1 for attempting to bribe a witness, and the total loss amount under USSG 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) based on a total loss amount of between $400,000 and $1 million. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and sentenced to 42 months in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release. Defendant Krug and co-defendant Elliot operated a Ponzi scheme. The court concluded that, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to prove that Krug intentionally participated in the agreement to defraud investors. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in denying his motion to proceed pro se where the district court was unable to determine that Krug’s attempted waiver of his right to counsel was knowing and voluntary based on his obstructionist behavior. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Krug" on Justia Law

After defendant successfully moved to suppress his statements to authorities made at a telemarketing firm where he worked, the United States appealed. Weighing the totality of the circumstances, the court agreed with the magistrate judge’s recommended finding that a reasonable person in defendant’s position would have felt free to terminate or leave the interview with officers. In this case, applying the six non-exclusive indicia of custody pursuant to United States v. Griffin, the court concluded that defendant was not subject to a custodial investigation where the officers did not employ a ruse or deceptive strategem to detain defendant and defendant was not particularly susceptible to deception. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order granting defendant's motion to suppress and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Laurita" on Justia Law

Defendants Nshanian and Nash were convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and wire fraud. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their involvement in a scheme to purchase real estate using material misrepresentations. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict Nshanian where a reasonable jury could infer that he knew of the conspiracy and scheme to defraud, and that he intended to defraud lenders. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Nshanian’s motion for judgment of acquittal. The court also concluded that the district court did not err at sentencing when it imposed a two-level increase for obstruction of justice pursuant to USSG 3C1.1 where the record is clear that the district court recognized its obligation to consider whether inaccurate testimony resulted from confusion, mistake or faulty memory. Under these circumstances, the district court’s finding was adequate. The court also concluded that Nshanian's 42-month sentence was substantively reasonable where it represented a substantial downward variance from the advisory guideline range. Finally, Nash's 42-month sentence was also substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and sentenced Nash to a lower advisory guideline range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Arman Nshanian" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and the district court subsequently granted his request to withdraw his guilty plea. Petitioner proceeded to trial and was convicted. Petitioner then filed a motion collaterally attacking his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing, inter alia, that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by considering and granting his pro se request to withdraw his guilty plea without first conducting a hearing under Faretta v. California. The court rejected petitioner's claim but granted a certificate of appealability. The court held that petitioner was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the district court granted his pro se request to withdraw his guilty plea. The record clearly shows that petitioner’s alleged waiver was knowing and intelligent. Further, the record from petitioner's four-day evidentiary hearing on his section 2255 motion shows that he understood the danger of abandoning his plea agreement. In this case, petitioner's lawyer repeatedly advised him against withdrawing his plea and warned him that he would receive a substantially longer sentence if he went to trial. Even without counsel's advice, the circumstances show that petitioner had sufficient knowledge to make an informed choice whether to withdraw his plea. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fiorito v. United States" on Justia Law

The district court reduced defendant's sentence of 324 months in prison to 294 months after an amendment to the sentencing guidelines lowered the advisory guideline range applicable to his offense of conviction (conspiracy to distribute controlled substances). Defendant appealed. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion by declining to grant him the maximum reduction available as it had previously. The court concluded that the district court's conclusion that a 294 month sentence was appropriate is not inconsistent with its prior decision. The court also concluded that the district court considered defendant's age, health, and all other relevant factors in its decision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Denton" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of fifty grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and the district court sentenced him as a career offender. The government concedes that defendant's conviction for escape is not a crime of violence in light of Johnson v. United States. Therefore, defendant is no longer a career offender under the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2). The court found that defendant preserved his vagueness challenge to the residual clause of the guidelines because he timely raised this objection before his sentencing hearing. The court conclude that the district court's alternative sentence was unsupported by the law and the error was not harmless. The district court's severe variance is unreasonable and the district court's other justifications do not support the degree of the upward variance either. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Burma, pleaded guilty to one count of failing to depart because he willfully failed or refused "to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary" for his departure after the BIA held that he was removable. Reviewing defendant's due process challenges de novo, the court concluded that the IJ did not violate due process by proceeding without an affirmative waiver of counsel from defendant where defendant waived his right to representation. Furthermore, defendant suffered no prejudice from not having been told of his right to appeal. The court rejected defendant's contention that he was given no reasonable opportunity to examine evidence against him because he did not receive a translated copy of the 2011 State Department report on human rights in Burma used to reject his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Finally, the court concluded that the district court committed no error precluding defendant from raising a coercion defense because the evidentiary predicate for a successful coercion defense is lacking. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Yan Naing" on Justia Law

At the time defendant committed the crime of strangulation in violation of 18 U.S.C. 113(a)(8), the Sentencing Commission had yet to promulgate a corresponding sentencing guideline. Defendant was sentenced under the Guidelines section for Domestic Violence pursuant to USSG 2A6.2. On appeal, defendant appealed his 41 month sentence. The court found that the Domestic Violence guideline is the most analogous guideline because it is the only provision that accounts for the intimate relationship between the attacker and victim. The court also found that the district court did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause when it sentenced defendant under the guideline in effect at the time of his offense of conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Iceman" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to possession of child pornography and then appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that reasonable suspicion existed for the probation officers' seizure of a USB drive where a modified condition of defendant's supervised release was that he submit to a search of his residence at a reasonable time and manner. Under the totality of these circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to believe that seizable items were stored on the USB drive and that they needed to secure it. The probation officers had both the requisite reasonable suspicion and the search condition necessary to lawfully seize the USB drive. Here, the district court found that defendant's admission to his probation officer that he had used a computer and that the USB drive in his possession contained adult and child pornography, combined with the facts on the record, formed a reasonable suspicion that he violated the conditions of his supervision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Makeeff" on Justia Law