Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and conspiracy to launder money. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 210 months imprisonment. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding the immigration consequences insufficient to merit a downward departure or a variance from his Guidelines range; defendant has not offered sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that his bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence is reasonable; and the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not give significant weight to improper or irrelevant evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Meza-Lopez" on Justia Law

Defendant, a debt collector, was convicted of eleven counts of bank fraud, nine counts of mail fraud, two counts of wire fraud, ten counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of impersonating a federal officer or employee. The court concluded that the district court did not err by finding that the total loss amount was $711,965.82; the district court did not clearly err in calculating the intended loss; the district court did not err in applying the enhancement for violation of an administrative order under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1cmt. n. 8; and the district court did not err in applying the vulnerable victim enhancement. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 175 month sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jokhoo" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to retaliating against a witness and subsequently appealed his sentence following the revocation of his supervised release. The court concluded that, although defendant's 24-month sentence was greater than the advisory Guidelines range and the sentence he proposed, the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. In this case, the district court gave appropriate consideration to the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, and explained that the upward variance was based on the seriousness of the offense and the need to promote respect for the law, to provide for just punishment, and to afford deterrence. Because the district court acted well within its discretion in sentencing defendant, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boelter" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to drug offenses and subsequently appealed the denial of his motion seeking a psychological examination and competency hearing. The court found no abuse of the district court's discretion because there was no reasonable cause to believe that defendant was incompetent. In this case, the medical reports indicated physical injury including a brain injury that resulted in "mild cognitive impairment," but the medical reports provided no indication that defendant was incapable of understanding the nature or consequences of the legal proceedings. Further, defendant's extensive participation at his hearings showed he understood the nature and consequences of the proceedings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Dahl" on Justia Law

After defendant was placed on supervised release, he admitted to violating a term of his supervised release by committing another federal, state, or local crime. The district court sentenced defendant to 25 months imprisonment with no supervised release and defendant appealed. The court concluded that the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court weighed the appropriate sentencing factors and did not commit clear error. View "United States v. Longs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an incarcerated felon, filed suit against defendants, alleging that the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-105(a)(1)(B), violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. An employee of the police department denied plaintiff's request for information regarding an individual plaintiff had assaulted because the Act only permits an incarcerated felon to request information of public record through an attorney. The court concluded that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to defendants because the Act does not violate the equal protection clause where the Act's limitation on those who many benefit from the law is rationally related to at least two legitimate government purposes: the prevention of unlawful use of the statute like harassing or threatening a witness or victim and conserving government resources; the Act does not violate plaintiff's due process right to access the courts because he has not shown that he will suffer an actual injury as a result of the Act's exclusion; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motions because his claims failed on the merits and he was not entitled to additional discovery. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gregory Holt v. Michelle Howard" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder, appealed the denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner argued that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence and his constitutional rights were violated by Missouri’s “direct connection rule,” under which the trial court excluded evidence of a third-party’s potential guilt. The court concluded that petitioner has not established grounds for federal habeas relief. However, as the district court noted, the newly presented evidence in this case deserves “serious consideration” in the state courts. Although the court rejected petitioner's gateway claim of actual innocence under Schlup v. Delo, the court noted that Missouri provides a procedure for a prisoner to petition for habeas corpus relief in its courts. The court suggested, without weighing in on the merits, that state court would be a more appropriate forum for petitioner's claims. View "Nash v. Russell" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, contending that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence gathered from a drug-detection dog sniff, a subsequent search of his apartment, and his post-arrest interview. The court held, pursuant to the factors in United States v. Dunn, that the area sniffed constituted the curtilage of defendant's apartment where the area sniffed was in close proximity to defendant's apartment, defendant made personal use of the area, and there was a bush planted in the area which partially covered his window. In this case, because officers had no license to invade defendant's curtilage and the area the dog sniffed was within the curtilage of defendant's apartment, the court held that the dog sniff was an illegal search in violation of defendant's Fourth Amendment rights under Florida v. Jardines. The court concluded that the exclusionary rule applied and rejected the government's claims that the officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding Eighth Circuit precedent in conducting the dog sniff and that the officers executed the search in good faith. Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of the motion to suppress and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Burston" on Justia Law

Defendants Lee and Haire appealed their convictions for drug-related and weapons-related crimes. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting wiretapped phone conversations; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a DEA agent's testimony about the meaning of drug related terms used by Lee and his coconspirators on the recordings; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of Lee's wiretapped statements about "drug cartels and Colombians;" the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting portions of the wiretapped conversations between Lee and a coconspirator and portions of the DEA agent's testimony regarding the conspiracy; the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving a willful blindness instruction; and the government presented sufficient evidence to convict Haire of conspiracy to launder the proceeds of drug trafficking. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Haire" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their sentences and the government filed a motion to dismiss based on defendants' voluntary plea agreements broadly waiving their right to appeal. The court concluded that the narrow exception in United States v. Andis, where the court will not enforce a knowing and voluntary appeal waiver if it will result in a miscarriage of justice, does not apply in defendants' cases. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dismiss the appeals in all of defendants' cases. View "United States v. Mujica-Aranda" on Justia Law