Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. Defendant concedes that circuit precedent forecloses his claim that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16901, violates the non-delegation doctrine and exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The court concluded that courts should use a circumstance-specific approach to determining if a prior offense constitutes conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor under SORNA. In this case, the arrest affidavit stated that defendant masturbated in front of an eleven-year-old child. Therefore, the court concluded that his prior conviction for indecent exposure was a sex offense that was a specified offense against a minor because it was conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of attempted commercial sex trafficking of a minor. Before trial, the government sought to prohibit defendant from introducing at trial e-mails that he had previously exchanged with purported prostitutes in which he rebuffed their services upon learning that they were underage. The court declined to consider defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal; the emails were inadmissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule, Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, because he has failed to provide the court with any information with which to evaluate the probative quality of the e-mails pursuant to Rule 28(a)(8)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; defendant failed to make the required showing that the district court's supplemental instruction regarding the victim's age constituted an error; the prosecutor's improper statement of the law was harmless because the evidence indicates that defendant needed no persuasion; the prosecutor's statement's regarding the substantial step required to find attempt were not plainly improper; and the prosecutor did not improperly vouch for defendant's guilt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Golliher" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, admitting at he plea hearing that he had a prior third degree felony conviction for assaulting a police officer in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-931(1). The district court sentenced defendant to 84 months in prison, determining that defendant's past felony conviction was for a crime of violence. By not objecting to the facts set forth in paragraph 31 of the presentencing report, and by conceding that his prior assault felony conviction was a crime of violence, defendant relieved the government of its obligation to submit court documents to establish at sentencing, using the modified categorical approach, that defendant’s prior conviction was a crime of violence because he intentionally caused bodily injury. The court assumed without deciding that violating Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-931(1) by recklessly causing bodily injury would not be a crime of violence, and concluded that the district court did not commit error - much less plain error - in determining that defendant’s advisory guidelines base offense level was 20 because his prior felony conviction for intentionally assaulting a police officer was a crime of violence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Garcia-Longoria" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant where a reasonable jury could have found that the special agent's testimony established that defendant possessed the firearm and quickly disposed of it in a vehicle before raising his hands and surrendering to law enforcement. The court also concluded that defendant failed to raise a colorable claim of outside influence to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, a new trial, or an evidentiary hearing on the allegations of juror misconduct. View "United States v. Muhammad" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed an amended judgment sentencing him to the statutory maximum of 120 months in prison for possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California and affirmed the amended judgment; concluded that there was no plain error in the district court's application of the USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement because unchallenged facts in the presentence report supported the enhancement; concluded that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable; and concluded, by reviewing the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Webster" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of pseudoephedrine, knowing it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. After Amendment 782 to the Guidelines retroactively lowered the base offense level for this offense, defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence. The district court determined that defendant was eligible for a discretionary reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), but denied the motion because the court believed that a reduction of defendant’s sentence would present a risk of danger to the community. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion based on defendant's prison conduct violations. The court affirmed because the district court's explanation was more than sufficient to allow the court to meaningfully review how its substantial sentencing discretion was exercised. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 108 month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error by imposing a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1 for attempting to suborn testimony where the language of section 3C1.1 and the language of the relevant examples all contemplate attempt as sufficient. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence is not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered all of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, and noted defendant's difficult life and criminal history. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and then challenged the warrantless search of his residence. The court concluded that the officers acted in their community caretaking function when they entered the residence where the officers received a call from a concerned member of the community regarding the safety of another community member (defendant's ex-girlfriend). On the scene, the officers learned further details indicating serious concern for the safety of defendant's ex-girlfriend and establishing multiple reasons why she would be at defendant’s residence and held against her will or in danger. The court also concluded that the officers reasonably believed an emergency situation existed that required their immediate attention in the form of entering defendant’s residence to search for the ex-girlfriend. Furthermore, the scope of the encounter was carefully tailored to satisfy the purpose. The firearm at issue was lying on the bed in the bedroom where the ex-girlfriend was located and it was partially covered by a bed sheet. Therefore, the firearm is admissible under the plain view doctrine. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and the district court sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on his three prior violent felony convictions. The court concluded that defendant's prior conviction for felony domestic assault is a violent felony under the force clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Schaffer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 188 month sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court did not err by applying a role enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b) where the record demonstrates that the conspiracy involved five participants and defendant directed the actions of two coconspirators by instructing them to deposit drug proceeds and by instructing one of them to send photos of drug packages. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err by attributing to defendant 4.5 kilograms of actual methamphetamine. Finally, the government did not breach defendant's cooperation agreement by offering testimony regarding his proffer statements to support its drug quantity calculation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Gonzalez Alcalde" on Justia Law