Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm as a felon and possessing a firearm not registered to him. The court concluded that evidence about a 2011 handgun incident was relevant to prove defendant knew about the shotgun next to him in the car and intended to possess it, and it made an innocent explanation for his behavior less likely. Further, the differences in the two incidents defendant emphasizes do not make the evidence inadmissible nor do they undermine its probative value. The court concluded that the handgun incident was similar enough to the facts of this case for the evidence to be relevant to defendant's mental state, a material element the government needed to prove. Defendant failed to identify any unfair prejudice allegedly outweighed by the probative value of the evidence. Further, the government did not expressly argue that defendant was guilty because he was the sort of person who would be likely to have a gun, and the court declined to view its description of the 2011 handgun incident as an attempt to do so surreptitiously. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prove defendant possessed the shotgun; the government's innocuous question to a witness about whether he would repeat his grand jury testimony was not improper nor unfairly prejudicial; and the district court did not err by increasing his criminal history category by one level under USSG 4A1.3(a)(1) where calculations understated the seriousness of defendant's criminal history. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Green-Bowman" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense. The facts here indicate that the district court understood and properly applied the “facilitate” standard in finding that the firearm was used “in connection with” defendant's heroin possession. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Jarvis" on Justia Law

Defendants Andrew Taylor and Victor Vickers were convicted of drug-related offenses. Taylor was also convicted of two counts based on a murder for hire conspiracy. The court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence to support Taylor's conviction of conspiracy to distribute over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana or over 5 kilograms of cocaine; Vickers' conviction for conspiracy to distribute less than 100 kilograms of marijuana; Taylor's conviction for aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine; and Taylor's convictions of conspiracy to commit murder for hire and possession of a machine gun in furtherance of a crime of violence. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Taylor's motion for a mistrial where the district court did strike the improper testimony regarding 24 wiretap recordings and an officer's testimony, and Taylor does not explain why this failed to cure any prejudice; there was a sufficient basis on which TFO Corbin could identify Taylor's voice and the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting these recordings; any error in admitting Officer Woodward's testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and the court rejected Taylor's claim of cumulative errors where any errors committed by the district court were harmless. Finally, the district court did err in applying the murder cross reference in USSG 2D1.1(d)(1) where the murder at issue is not relevant conduct under USSG 1B1.3(a)(2) because it cannot be grouped with Vickers' offense of conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions, vacated Vickers' sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Defendants Christopher and Jordan were found guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury, both in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 113, and 1153. The court concluded that the admission of the certificates of the degree of Indian blood did not violate Christopher’s and Jordan’s Sixth Amendment rights because they were admissible as non-testimonial business records. In this case, the enrollment clerk here did not complete forensic testing on evidence seized during a police investigation, but instead performed the ministerial duty of preparing certificates based on information that was kept in the ordinary course of business. Moreover, in addition to the certificates, the government elicited testimony from the deputy superintendent for trust services that Christopher and Jordan were enrolled in the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the lesser-included-offense instruction; there was no error in the district court’s questioning of the emergency room doctor; and the evidence was sufficient to convict Jordan of assault with a dangerous weapon or assault resulting in serious bodily injuries. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rainbow" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon and the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), sentencing petitioner to 327 months in prison. Petitioner moved to vacate his sentence in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Descamps v. United States, but the district court denied relief. The court agreed with other circuits that the decision in Descamps was dictated by the general principles set forth in existing precedent and did not establish a new rule. Therefore, petitioner's motion does not rely on a right that was “newly recognized” by the Supreme Court in Descamps, and the district court correctly dismissed petitioner's motion as untimely based on the limitations period of 18 U.S.C. 2255(f)(1). The court affirmed the judgment. View "Headbird v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for domestic assault in Indian country by an habitual offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. 117. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion in limine and in allowing the government to use his prior simple-assault conviction as a predicate offense under section 117(a); it was reasonable for the jury to credit the victim’s corroborated testimony and find defendant guilty of domestic assault; and defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where the district court sentenced him at the bottom of the Guidelines range after considering various factors such as his health, history of criminal assault, seriousness of domestic violence, failure to accept responsibility, and his lack of remorse. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Harlan" on Justia Law

Defendant filed a motion to suppress the search of a vehicle after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm after police found a firearm during a protective search of the vehicle. The court concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for the officer to draw his weapon, order defendant out of the vehicle, detain defendant in handcuffs, and sweep the passenger seat of the vehicle for weapons. Therefore, the investigative stop and protective sweep of the vehicle was not more intrusive than necessary, and it did not amount to a de facto arrest. The court also concluded that any error in applying a four-level increase to defendant's offense level under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because he possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense would be harmless because the alternative upward variance was substantively reasonable based on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where the district court adequately considered the section 3553(a) factors and did not rely on any portion of the PSIR to which defendant objected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sanford" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession and subsequently appealed his 180 month sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on three prior violent felony convictions. The court concluded that the district court erred by concluding that defendant's aggravated assault conviction was a violent felony and sentencing him as an armed career criminal. In this case, subsection (a)(1) of Arkansas' aggravated assault statute only requires the government to prove that a defendant's conduct created "a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury" and therefore it does not qualify as a violent felony under the force clause of section 924(e)(2). Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 110 month sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession. The court concluded that defendant's previous battery conviction under Ark. Code Ann. 5-13-202 was for a crime of violence because it included the use of violent force as an element where it is impossible to cause bodily injury without applying force. The court also concluded that the district court correctly calculated defendant's base offense level of 22 under USSG 2K2.1 of the Guidelines. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rice" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence for one count of conspiracy to knowingly distribute a controlled substance and one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; the district court did not plainly err in sua sponte dismissing the superseding indictment where defendant is not guaranteed the right to an indictment including a full and accurate factual account of the alleged crime, and the government did not violate her rights and did not prejudice her by removing the names of her codefendants; the district court did not err in allowing the government to make this statement during closing argument; the district court did not plainly err in making statements about a different criminal matter; the district court did not err in imposing an enhancement for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1; the sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered and discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; and the district court did not err in denying safety-valve relief because defendant failed to show that she truthfully provided all information to the government. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Morales" on Justia Law