Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for charges related to his involvement in a scheme to defraud mortgage lenders. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and concluded that the information provided by the confidential reliable informant (CRI) was sufficiently reliable to support a finding of probable cause, regardless of the manner in which he was identified; statements defendant made to investigators were properly admitted where defendant was not in custody at any point during the interview at issue; the district court did not clearly err in its credibility findings; and the court rejected defendant's claim that his statements were not voluntarily because the agents threatened defendant's wife and children. The court also concluded that the government proved a single conspiracy involving four properties; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress pretrial and in-court identification of defendant; the district court did not err in determining defendant's relevant conduct, the actual loss amount, and that defendant had obstructed justice; and neither Apprendi v. New Jersey nor Alleyne v. United States are applicable in this case because the district court's findings did not increase the statutory maximum sentence or the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mshihiri" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possessing stolen firearms and ammunition and for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's objection to the admission of other-crimes evidence at trial because, even if some of the evidence was extrinsic, its admission did not violate FRE 404(b). In this case, the evidence was probative of a material issue other than character because it tended to prove defendant’s intent, lack of mistake or accident, and knowledge. Further, the evidence was similar in kind and not overly remote in time. Notice was also reasonable under the circumstances. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not procedurally err by imposing a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for use or possession of any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense. Defendant's sentence was also substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion by varying downward from the advisory sentencing range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court rejected defendant's claim that his civil right to possess a firearm was restored by an amendment to the Missouri Constitution where the Supreme Court of Missouri has held to the contrary under State v. Clay. Further, the district court properly concluded that defendant's two second-degree domestic assault and second-degree burglary convictions qualified as predicate felonies under 18 U.S.C. 924(e). Therefore, the district court properly found defendant to be an armed career criminal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, conditionally pled guilty to illegal reentry. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of her motion to dismiss the indictment, contending that the district court erred in concluding, without an evidentiary hearing, that her original removal order “did not violate her right to due process.” The court concluded that defendant failed to establish a due process violation and the district court did not err in denying her motion to dismiss without a hearing. In this case, the district court properly rejected defendant's claim that she had the right to withdraw her application for admission at the border without further factual development, and her uncontested factual assertion that she would have sought to exercise that right. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Santos-Pulido" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 192-month sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine near a school. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in imposing a three-level enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b) because defendant was a manager or supervisor of criminal activity that involved at least five participants. The court concluded that Elly Kohl, the mother of Casey Duhme's child, was a participant in the criminal activity where Duhme provided two boxes of the pseudoephedrine, one of which came from Kohl. The court also concluded that defendant's wife, Patricia, was a participant in the criminal activity where she purchased pseudoephedrine pills for her husband on two prior occasions, Patricia allowed her husband to manufacture methamphetamine inside their shared apartment, and Patricia fled with defendant and Duhme after the attempt to manufacture methamphetamine went awry. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Starks" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 88-month sentence after pleading guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a USSG 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) enhancement because defendant's prior conviction of assault while displaying a dangerous weapon under Iowa Code 708.1(3) and 708.2(3) categorically qualified as a crime of violence under USSG 4B1.2(a)(1); the district court did not err in imposing a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using or possessing the firearm in connection with another felon offense and the application of the enhancement avoids the double counting concerns Note 14(C)'s exclusion seeks to prevent; and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boots" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and four counts of wire fraud. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment where the indictment sufficiently contained the elements of the offense charged; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony of co-conspirators where the evidence presented was sufficient to independently corroborate the existence of a conspiracy; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors - particularly defendant's criminal history and the need to protect the public - and the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning the sentence it found necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of section 3553(a). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Whitlow" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 61-month sentence after pleading guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court concluded that the district court correctly overruled defendant's objection to the district court's finding that his prior felony conviction for resisting arrest by fleeing, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 575.150, was a “crime of violence” within the meaning of USSG 4B1.2(a) where the court held that a felony violation of section 575.150 is categorically a crime of violence; if there was error in applying the residual clause to defendant's prior conviction under Johnson v. United States, then the error is not “obvious” or “plain,” and relief is not warranted under the plain-error standard of review; and the court declined to use a plain error standard of review in considering his claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred by considering his prior conviction for resisting arrest by fleeing because it was not a conviction for which he received criminal history points under USSG 4A1.1(a), (b), or (c). In this case, the sentence imposed is well within the statutory range authorized for the offense of conviction and is consistent with the court's view of the Sentencing's Commission's advice, both past and present. View "United States v. Ellis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for second degree murder and assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The victim is defendant's two-year-old daughter. The court concluded that the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim's injuries fell within the time period specified in the indictment and that sufficient evidence exists to support defendant's convictions on Counts 1 and 3; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based on prejudicial pretrial publicity; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the August 2011 spanking incident under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court abused its discretion in ruling that his stepson's testimony could be admissible as rebuttal evidence; the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit evidence of prior arrests, convictions, police reports, or character evidence related to the victim's mother and her husband; based on the Bureau of Prisons psychiatrist's medical opinion, the district court did not clearly err in finding defendant competent; defendant's mandatory minimum sentence provided in 18 U.S.C. 3559(f)(1) is not constitutional as applied to him; and defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment and was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Contreras" on Justia Law

Defendants Benedict and Carpenter appealed their sentences and convictions for conspiracy and burglarizing various drug stores where they stole pharmaceutical products and cash from safes, registers, and ATMs. The court rejected defendant's claim that he was improperly denied a severance where the evidence is not sufficient to show that the jury could not have made a reliable judgment about Benedict's guilt or innocence because of the district court's limiting jury instructions; the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Benedict's request to permit expert testimony because of Benedict's failure to make disclosures required under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(C); furthermore, the subject of the proffered expert testimony was improper; and the evidence was sufficient to convict Benedict. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in ordering $53,729 in restitution from Carpenter to the targeted stores for sums of money taken from safes and cash registers during the burglaries; defendants are bound by their evidentiary stipulation and it was not plain error for the district court to accept it; and the district court did not err in applying enhancements under the sentencing guidelines for being career offenders as defined in USSG 4B1.1 where each defendant had prior convictions for commercial burglaries, offenses which were classified as crimes of violence under USSG 4B1.2. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Benedict" on Justia Law