Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to possession of child pornography, was sentenced to 60 months in imprison, and was placed on five years of supervised release with a special condition imposed that restricts his use of electronic devices and the internet. The court concluded that the district court did not plainly err in imposing a special condition limiting defendant's computer use and internet access where the record demonstrates that for the past decade defendant actively downloaded thousands of child pornography images, and defendant also shared files over the internet through a file sharing program. In this case, the computer and internet restriction imposed by the district court is reasonable because it is not a total ban on internet and computer use. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Goettsch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for embezzling union funds. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that defendant had the fraudulent intent to deprive Local 314 of its money, funds, property, or other assets; the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendant's proposed jury instruction to include the requirement that he "lacked a good faith belief that the expenditure was for the legitimate benefit of the Union"; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting checks and invoices to show that the Union paid defendant for identical services, making it more probable that the services were never rendered; and the district court did not err in delaying the trial by three days to ensure a full 12-member jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant Mary Ann Ramos and her son, Earl James, were convicted on several drug-distribution counts. Defendants raised several issues on appeal. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Mary's conviction where the evidence was sufficient to show that Mary knew the specific features of á-PVP that make it a controlled substance. In this case, the evidence allowed the jury to infer Mary’s knowledge of the specific features of the substance that make it a controlled substance analogue, and she understood the pharmacological effects of the substance. Because the district court correctly applied the guidelines and because the expert's testimony supported the district court’s factual conclusion that THC was the most similar substance to the synthetic cannabinoids at issue, the court found no clear error in the application of the 1:167 marijuana-equivalency ratio and, therefore, the determination of defendants’ base offense levels. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentences. View "United States v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found after his arrest. The court concluded, under the totality of the circumstances, that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop. In this case, among other things, defendant was stopped within a few blocks of the wreck of a stolen car, roughly forty minutes after officers saw suspects flee the crime scene; defendant partly matched the description of at least one suspect; it was late at night; and the officer saw defendant emerge from an alley and walk away from the direction of the crime scene. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by applying a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense where the district court found that defendant's possession had the potential to facilitate his use or sale of the methamphetamine. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Quinn" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 27 months in prison after pleading guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a downward variance, ultimately citing defendant’s multiple felony convictions and an outstanding warrant for failure to appear on a probation violation as the basis for its decision to deny the request and impose a within-Guidelines sentence. Further, the sentence imposed by the district court, on the low end of the properly-calculated Guidelines range, was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 24 months in prison after pleading guilty to one count of escape from a Bureau of Prisons facility. The court concluded that the district court did not err in calculating defendant's prior Minnesota convictions as not relevant conduct to his escape offense, and in including them in his criminal history score. Accordingly, because the district court did not err in calculating defendant's criminal history category, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Slaughter" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of a stolen firearm, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the record shows that defendant stipulated to a 180 month sentence in his plea agreement. Further, nothing in the record demonstrates that the district court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave improper weight to an irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors. The court denied defendant's motion requesting new counsel and raising new legal issues. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentenced and denied defendant's motion. View "United States v. Lovell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff pled guilty to possessing marijuana with intent to distribute and then appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The court concluded that the drug dog was reliable and the affidavit in this case gave sufficient facts about the dog’s reliability. Moreover, all the other facts support probable cause: defendant was a licensed pilot for less than a month, he purchased the plane months before, he was flying a non-commercial aircraft a long distance at night, he deviated from his flight plan, and he displayed evasive behavior at the hotel. The court further concluded that, because there was probable cause that the aircraft contained evidence of a crime, the plane could be held until the warrant issued. Therefore, defendant could not have simply left on the aircraft, and his arrest in the hotel room and his subsequent detention awaiting the search warrant were lawful. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on multiple counts, including conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, attempted possession with intent to distribute marijuana, traveling in interstate commerce with the intent to distribute proceeds of and promote an unlawful activity, promotion of money laundering, and forfeiture. On appeal, the government challenged the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The court agreed with the district court and the magistrate judge that at least some of the encounter between the law enforcement officer and defendant just following the traffic stop was consensual; just about four minutes after the completion of the stop, defendant admitted to possessing a personal use amount of an illegal narcotic and the ultimate search of the vehicle by the officer was lawful; and the time between the completion of the stop and defendant's admission regarding his possession of drugs does not run afoul of constitutional constraints because the time was de minimis intrusion on defendant's personal liberty and the resulting search and arrest was supported by probable cause. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Englehart" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, alleging that counsel was ineffective in failing to move to suppress the search of his cell phone data incident to arrest. At the time of defendant's arrest, there was no precedent from either the Eighth Circuit or the Supreme Court requiring a search warrant for the search of cell phone data incident to arrest. Applying the "strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance," the court concluded that counsel did not act constitutionally deficient in failing to file a motion to suppress. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Basham v. United States" on Justia Law