Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his 360 month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base. The court concluded that the district court properly applied a three-level role enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b) because defendant was a manager or supervisor in the conspiracy, a two-level enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(2) for the use of violence, and a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2D1.1 for maintaining his residence for substantial drug-trafficking activities. Finally, the court explained that it need not consider defendant's claim that the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity because, even if the district court erred, such error would be harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sykes" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), to 200 months in prison. The Supreme Court subsequently invalidated the residual clause of the ACCA in Johnson v. United States, and the district court vacated defendant's original sentence, imposing a 120-month sentence. On appeal, defendant challenged his revised sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err by imposing a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of the firearm in connection with another felon. The court also concluded that any error in the classification of his prior conviction for third-degree non-residential burglary under Minnesota law was harmless because the district court expressly determined it would have imposed the same sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Pate" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 180 month sentence and conviction for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The court concluded that petitioner waived any objection to the district court's admission of Attachment B of the cooperation agreement; the district court committed no error in not declaring a mistrial sua sponte, because trial counsel could not have testified that defendant's prior attorney made prior inconsistent statements because trial counsel never confronted the attorney with his prior inconsistent statements; and the court rejected defendant's claim that sufficient evidence exists to support his public-authority defense. Finally, the court rejected defendant's challenges to his sentence, claiming that the district court erred in denying his motion for retesting the purity of the methamphetamine and his motion for reconsideration of the denial of that motion; the district court erred in applying an obstruction-of-justice enhancement; and the district court erred in denying him an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

Petitioner plead guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana and possessing with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Petitioner sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing and this court granted a certificate of appealability (COA). The court concluded that petitioner failed to show a substantial likelihood that he would have accepted the offer to plead guilty pursuant to the more favorable terms offered prior to the suppression hearing. Consequently, petitioner has not proven that counsel's advice prejudiced his defense. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's section 2255 petition without an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Allen v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the drug evidence. The court concluded that the officer in this case was faced with circumstances that, as a whole, were sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion necessary to justify extending the traffic stop. The court also concluded that the traffic stop in this case exceeded neither the constitutional boundaries set forth in the court's then-extant decisions nor those set forth in Rodriguez v. United States. In this case, the traffic stop was not impermissibly expanded or prolonged, the passenger's consent to search the truck was valid, the continued detention to search the truck pursuant to that consent was permissible, and the ensuing search of the truck was lawful. The court further concluded that, under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the officer was permitted to search every part of the vehicle and its contents that could conceal drug-related contraband, including the air compressor. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. Finally, the court concluded that the district court exceeded its authority under 18 U.S.C. 3583(d) when it ordered that defendant be removed as a special condition of supervision. The court modified the judgment to reflect the change in the special condition. As modified, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Murillo-Salgado" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 227 months in prison in 2005 for his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and one count of violent crime in aid of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1959(a)(3). In 2015, defendant moved to reduce his sentence based upon amendment 782 to the sentencing guidelines, but the district court denied the motion. The court concluded that the district court's standing order appointing a public defender to represent all defendants who may be eligible to seek a sentence reduction under amendment 782 did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to proceed pro se; the court extended the Supreme Court's holding in Martinez and held that defendants do not have a due process right to self representation at postconviction sentence reduction proceedings; the district court is not required to entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party; the district court did not violate defendant's due process rights; and the court rejected defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant a sentence reduction where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors; defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable where the district court acknowledged defendant's postsentencing rehabilitation efforts; and the district court did not create a new sentence when it declined to modify his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Tollefson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder, armed criminal action, and first-degree assault, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief. Petitioner argued that the State failed to disclose that a key prosecution witness received favorable consideration in exchange for his testimony. The court noted that, even if it had reason to doubt compliance with the statute of limitations in this case, the court proceeded to the merits in the interest of judicial economy. On the merits, the court concluded that the State did not violate Brady v. Maryland nor Napue v. Illinois where nothing in the factual findings indicated that the district court's finding that no formal or tacit agreement existed between the State and the witness was reasonable. The court assumed that the financial assistance the witness received for staying in a hotel for one week and relocating to another apartment was subject to Brady's disclosure mandate. However, failure to disclose this information here did not violate Brady because it did not undermine confidence in the verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "White v. Steele" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and order of restitution after pleading guilty to one count of wire fraud. The court concluded that the district court committed procedural error when it departed upward from the advisory sentencing guidelines and thus remanded for resentencing. In this case, the analysis the district court provided did not adequately explain and support the district court's significant departure from Criminal History Category II to Category VI. The court also concluded that defendant's appeal waiver was enforceable as to the restitution order and thus dismissed the appeal of the restitution order. View "United States v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

Defendants Cooke and Cantu appealed their sentences and convictions for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. Cooke argued in his motion to dismiss that the 65 day delay between his February 18 arrest and April 24 initial appearance violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a)(1)(A) and the Sixth Amendment. The court concluded that the appropriate remedy for a violation of Rule 5(a)(1)(A) is not dismissal of an indictment, but suppression of evidence illegally obtained as a result of the violation. In this case, Cooke pointed to no such evidence, he was not prejudiced by the period of delay, and he cannot identify any available remedy for an alleged violation of Rule 5. This case involved several coconspirator defendants, voluminous discovery, several requests from defendants for continuances, and motions for both Cooke's and Cantu's requests for continuances as well as their motions to withdraw. The court concluded that, given the circumstances in this case, there was no violation of Cooke's right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment based on the delay. The court also concluded that there was no procedural error in the district court's upward departure of Cooke's sentence nor was the departure substantively unreasonable. The court further concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying an upward variance to Cooke's sentence. The court concluded that Cantu waived her challenge to the admission of text message evidence; her Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(c)(1), claim was waived; the court declined to address Cantu's ineffective assistance of counsel claim; and the evidence was sufficient to support her conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cooke" on Justia Law

After defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Mathis v. United States. The court vacated the sentence and remanded to the district court to determine whether defendant's second-degree burglary convictions were "of a building," and thus violent felonies under the ACCA. View "United States v. Preston Phillips" on Justia Law