Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed his sentence. The district court sentenced defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), because he had three predicate offenses. Defendant's prior Missouri conviction was for committing second-degree assault by knowingly attempting to cause physical injury to another by means of a dangerous instrument. The court held that defendant's conviction for Assault Second Degree, which constitutes an attempted use of physical force, qualifies as a “violent felony” within the meaning of section 924(e)(2)(B)(i) and affirmed the district court’s application of the ACCA enhancement to defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Alexander" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to aiding and abetting a bank robbery and then appealed her sentence of 97 months in prison. The court concluded that the district court’s reliance, in part, on defendant’s knowledge of her co-defendant’s past use of a firearm in a bank robbery sufficiently supported the U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) sentencing enhancement for use of a firearm. In this case, the co-defendant's use of a firearm was reasonably foreseeable. Because the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Daudinot" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the admissibility of the reverse F.R.E. 404(b) evidence regarding the victim's prior criminal conviction; the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in deciding that defendant's proffered evidence regarding motive and bias against defendant was inadmissible under Rule 403; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the victim's 911 call under the excited utterance exception of Rule 803(2); and the district court did not err in applying a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Boman" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon and then appealed the district court's order denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered in a search of his vehicle. In this case, the police observed defendant engage in behavior consistent with a hand-to-hand drug transaction from inside the suspect vehicle; the officers then recovered a baggie of drugs that defendant discarded outside the vehicle; and the officers smelled an odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. In light of these facts, the court concluded that the officers had ample reason to believe that the vehicle contained marijuana or other evidence of drug-related activity. Therefore, the officers had probable cause to search and the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Brian Daniel" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former police officer, appealed his conviction for charges stemming from allegations that he distributed marijuana to a confidential informant (CI). The court rejected defendant's Brady v. Maryland claim that the government had a duty to disclose a detective's misconduct prior to the detective's testimony at defendant's trial. The court concluded that, when the evidence at issue is misconduct by a government witness, and that misconduct is unrelated to the investigation or prosecution of the defendant, is known only to the witness himself, and could not have been discovered by the prosecutor through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the court is reluctant to conclude that such evidence should be imputed to the prosecutor. The court also concluded that defendant failed to show that the alleged Brady evidence was material where the detective was not the only officer to testify about the controlled drug buy that resulted in defendant’s marijuana-distribution conviction. Because the marijuana-distribution conviction was not obtained in violation of Brady, the court rejected defendant's argument that the government’s introduction of that conviction at his second trial entitles him to a new trial on the false-statement charge. Likewise, the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of the marijuana-distribution conviction. The court further concluded that the district court’s impartiality cannot be reasonably questioned, and it did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to recuse; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; and, in regard to the false-statement count, defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to raise a presumption of vindictiveness, and so the district court did not commit plain error in rejecting defendant’s claim for relief on that ground. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to harboring, encouraging, and inducing an alien to reside in the United States, and conspiracy to transport, harbor, and encourage and induce aliens to reside in the United States. On appeal, defendant challenged his 33 month sentence. The court concluded that the Government's pursuit of a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice did not violate the plea agreement; the district court did not err in calculating defendant's advisory sentencing guidelines range where the district court found that defendant lied to an agent and encouraged a witness to corroborate his lie; and, having found that defendant obstructed justice, the district court did not clearly err in denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Manzano-Huerta" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of numerous firearms and subsequently appealed his sentence. The district court sentenced defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), to 180 months in prison. The court concluded that defendant's prior Missouri second-degree burglary convictions fit within the generic definition of “burglary” for purposes of the ACCA and each constitutes a violent felony under section 924(e). The court also concluded that defendant's sentence enhancement under section 924(e) for crimes he committed as a juvenile does not violate the Eighth Amendment, and the district court did not err in enhancing the sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Sykes" on Justia Law

Defendants Levon and Jamal Dean appealed their convictions for armed robberies of drug dealers in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, and related counts. The court concluded that, under the court's precedent, because the Deans robbed drug dealers, the offense arises under the Hobbs Act so long as there is any evidence regarding the interstate character of the drug dealing; in this case, because the transactions at issue took place in the Sioux City area, a metropolitan area reasonably encompassing three different states, the interstate nexus requirement was easily met; there was sufficient evidence to prove a single conspiracy; even if there was a variance, such a variance was harmless error because it did not infringe on Jamal's substantial rights; there was sufficient evidence to convict Jamal of carjacking; there was sufficient evidence to convict Levon of possessing and aiding and abetting in the possession of a firearm; Jamal's lack of success on the merits of the multiple- versus single-conspiracy claim precludes him from prevailing on his claim that the district court erred in refusing to give his "multiple conspiracies" jury instruction; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. Finally, the court concluded that defendants' sentences are substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Dean, Jr." on Justia Law

An attorney petitioned for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition directing the district court to set aside an order that disqualified counsel from representing three witnesses in a grand jury proceeding and to schedule a hearing to address whether counsel has an unwaivable conflict of interest that necessitates his disqualification. Having reviewed the sealed motion to disqualify filed by the United States Attorney, which includes information derived from secret grand jury proceedings, the court is satisfied that counsel does have a conflict of interest in concurrently representing his three clients during proceedings before the grand jury. The court concluded that the district court's ruling was not a clear abuse of discretion and agreed with the district court that a hearing to consider possible waivers of counsel’s conflict of interest would require a deleterious breach of grand jury secrecy. Further, the court concluded that, assuming that a grand jury witness could waive his interest in conflict-free assistance of counsel, the district court did not engage in judicial usurpation of power by concluding that no such waiver was feasible or permissible under the circumstances presented here. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "In re: Grand Jury Process, John Doe" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a sentence of 24 months' imprisonment. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a probation officer’s testimony and the Virginia arrest warrants and incident report, because producing the live testimony of the Virginia officers at the Missouri revocation hearing would have been unreasonably burdensome and impractical, and because the evidence offered in place of that testimony was sufficiently reliable. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that the Virginia offense of malicious bodily injury to law-enforcement officers qualified as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a) and a Grade A violation of supervised release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Harrison" on Justia Law