Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to receiving and distributing child pornography, and was sentenced to a fifteen-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1). The Supreme Court's decision in Lockhart v. United States held that the phrase “involving a minor or ward” in section 2252(b)(2) modifies only “abusive sexual conduct” and not “aggravated sexual abuse” or “sexual abuse.” Therefore, section 2252(b)(2) “applies to prior state convictions for ‘sexual abuse’ and ‘aggravated sexual abuse,’ whether or not the convictions involved a minor or ward.” In this case, the court concluded that a conviction for third-degree sexual assault under Nebraska Revised Statutes 28-320 categorically triggered a sentencing enhancement under section 2252(b)(1). Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Knowles" 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 support defendant's conviction; the district court properly admitted the expert testimony of an ATF Special Agent because he based his opinion on the kinds of evidence the court previously considered sufficient; the court declined to consider defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this appeal; and defendant failed to establish a Brady v. Maryland violation where defendant's argument contains no mention of an exculpatory fact, material or otherwise, withheld by the prosecution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Spight" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for several drug and firearms charges. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the evidence because the officer's initial stop of defendant's car was lawful. In this case, the court held that the district court's factual findings cannot set be set aside, given the deference the court owed them. The district court was inclined to agree that defendant's car window was partially up, but nevertheless credited the magistrate judge's determination that the rest of the officer's testimony - including his claim that he smelled PCP from defendant's car - was true. The court also concluded that the particular combination of circumstances known to the officers was sufficient to justify the search of the car as a protective sweep. Further, the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for possession with intent to distribute PCP and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; the evidence was also sufficient for the jury to find that he constructively possessed the PCP found at a certain residence; defendant was properly sentenced as a career offender; and defendant's 360 month prison sentence was at the bottom of the applicable advisory guidelines range and was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for aiding and abetting embezzlement from an agency receiving federal funds. The district court overruled defendant's objection to receiving a criminal history point for a previous uncounseled conviction, but varied downward from the advisory Guidelines range, sentencing defendant to 6 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. Defendant attempts to show a constitutional error in his prior conviction by arguing that he was not advised of his right to counsel and therefore did not knowingly waive that right during the proceeding that led to his misdemeanor conviction. The record, however, is silent with regard to any evidence that would establish his factual claim. Because defendant failed to meet his burden of proving the factual basis upon which his legal argument relies, the district court did not err in calculating his criminal history score. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Dodson" on Justia Law

Defendant, former president, CEO, and chairman of the board of Bixby, was convicted of four counts of mail fraud, eight counts of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, witness tampering, and three counts of tax evasion. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant had the requisite intent to defraud Bixby investors; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the tax evasion counts; the district court committed no clear error in reasonably estimating the actual loss resulting from defendant’s fraud offenses as equaling the total amounts lost by Bixby investors who submitted Victim Impact Statements; the district court did not err by imposing a two-level enhancement because defendant abused a position of public or private trust under USSG 3B1.3; and, because the Commission has not made retroactive the amendments on which defendant wishes to rely, 18 U.S.C. 3742(g)(1) would apply if he were resentenced, making the requested remand a futile exercise. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court permissibly concluded that an investigator's testimony would be helpful to the jury in understanding the recorded phone calls at issue and the district court properly admitted this testimony; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; and defendant's sentence of 360 months in prison is not substantively unreasonable where the district court had ample reason to treat the coconspirators differently, and defendant's sentence was longer due primarily to an extensive criminal history that qualified him as a career offender and his refusal to accept responsibility for his criminal conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Avalos" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced defendant to 180 months in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). Because defendant did not challenge any statements relating to the drug investigation, the allegedly false statements about the homicide investigation were not necessary to find probable cause to support issuing a search warrant. The court agreed with the district court that the unchallenged statements in the affidavit provided sufficient facts to support a warrant to search defendant’s home. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to hold a Franks hearing and to suppress the evidence. The court concluded, in light of United States v. Johnson, that defendant's prior convictions under Missouri law can no longer qualify as predicate offenses under the ACCA's residual clause. In this case, the Missouri statute at issue includes conduct that falls under the ACCA's force clause; the statute also defines the offense to include fleeing from an officer; and, applying the modified categorical approach, the court cannot conclude that any of his prior convictions were for violent felonies under the force clause. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the court does not impose any limitations on the evidence the district court may consider. View "United States v. Shockley" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Officers received a report that a man might need medical attention. The officers found defendant lying on the sidewalk next to a fallen bicycle, and when the officer righted defendant's bicycle, an unzipped bag attached to the handlebars came open, revealing two firearms and drug paraphernalia. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of drugs and a firearm. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the suppression motion because the officer did not conduct a search, but rather saw defendant's firearm in plain view in a public area. The court concluded that the officer's movement of the bicycle under the unique circumstances of this case did not constitute a search and did not therefore implicate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Defendant also challenged the imposition of a condition of supervised release that he obtain no additional tattoos. The government argued that the cost of tattoos would provide a hindrance to defendant's societal rehabilitation because the cost would interfere with his ability to pay for court-ordered substance abuse and mental health counseling. The court disagreed, concluding that the prohibition on this expenditure is not related to defendant's educational, vocational, medicinal, or other correctional needs, and has no connection to the other 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. The court modified the condition. View "United States v. Campos" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and two counts of making a false claim against the United States. Defendant's convictions stemmed from her filing of fraudulent 1099-OID forms. Defendant argued that the district court erred when it excluded a video about fractional-reserve banking from evidence that she claims supported her good-faith defense. The court concluded that the district court's exclusion of the video from the jury deliberations did not affect defendant's substantial rights and admission of the video would not have changed the verdict. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not err in excluding the video. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McQuarry" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, sentenced to death in Missouri, filed suit against defendants, alleging that the State's method of execution is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudiced and observed that the order was not a final order subject to appeal. The Supreme Court subsequently granted a stay of execution. The parties then filed briefs regarding whether plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the district court did not properly enter a final judgment, and the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Rule 54(b) does not apply to a single-claim action. Plaintiff's complaint brought only a single claim against state officials and the district court resolved that single claim by dismissing the complaint without prejudice. In this case, the district court could not invoke Rule 54(b) to enter a final judgment, or to “certify” its order for immediate appeal, because the district court’s order did not leave any claims, or the rights of any parties, unadjudicated in a case involving multiple claims or multiple parties. View "Johnson v. Lombardi" on Justia Law