Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant moved to dismiss charges of federal felony offenses, arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because a 1905 Act of Congress diminished the Red Lake Reservation, removing the town of Redby from Indian country. The district court denied the motion and defendant conditionally plead guilty. The court concluded that the record did not adequately support the district court’s determination that Redby is part of Indian country as a matter of law. Therefore, the court vacated the order, allowed defendant to withdraw his plea, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that defendant's indictment sufficiently charged him with unlawful possession of a firearm, set out the necessary elements for unlawful possession, and fairly informed defendant of the charge he was facing. The court also concluded that the district court correctly followed precedent and applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), enhancement where this court has unequivocally rejected defendant's argument that the jury must find the convictions used to enhance a sentence were committed on separate occasions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wyatt" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 360 month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court erred in relying on unproven, objected-to facts by relying on defendant's unproven conviction for second degree sexual abuse as a juvenile; the conviction was only one basis for denying defendant's requested downward variance; and defendant failed to establish a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable sentence if the district court had not relied on his unproven prior conviction. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence came within the guideline range and was amply supported by the record. Because defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cottrell" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting screenshots representing the online content of a website; the district court did not commit reversible error by admitting the Government's Exhibit 51, a summary chart containing information regarding the investigation; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's requested instruction regarding the term "distribute;" and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial or his request for an evidentiary hearing because he failed to establish juror bias or misconduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Needham" on Justia Law

Defendants Delgrosso and Cain were convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Delgrosso also was found guilty of failing to file IRS Form 8300. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motions for a new trial based on Jerry Wright's post-trial affidavit because, even if Wright testified or the affidavit were admitted, the Government could impeach Wright's credibility by introducing evidence of his seven prior felony convictions. Furthermore, even if the jury believed Wright's statements, that does not mean that it would likely acquit defendants. In this case, the Government provided ample evidence that would allow the jury to conclude that Delgrosso and Cain knew or willfully blinded themselves to the fact that Wright acquired his cash through drug sales. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Delgrosso's motion for a new trial based on Government misconduct under Brady v. Maryland where it was untimely and, even if it was timely, his allegations either relate to issues that were irrelevant or were directly contradicted; the district court did not plainly err by instructing the jury on willful blindness; the district court did not err in denying Delgrosso's motion for acquittal where sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict; and the district court did not clearly err in denying Delgrosso safety-valve relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Delgrosso" on Justia Law