Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, seeks authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. Petitioner contends that the Supreme Court established a new rule made retroactive when it held in Johnson v. United States that the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), is unconstitutional. Based on the government’s concession, the court concluded that petitioner has made a prima facie showing that his motion contains “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” Accordingly, the court granted petitioner's authorization to file a successive section 2255 motion. View "Woods v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to the charge of felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that the stop of the SUV in which defendant was riding was supported by the personal observations of the officer which provided her with reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Further, the district court did not err in concluding that the officer's seizure of the handgun underneath the front seat fell within the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Vinson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four felonies after he impersonated an FBI agent and threatened a married couple living in South Dakota as part of a scheme to steal their property. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's jury instruction on the felon in possession of a firearm charge. The court concluded that defendant's argument is foreclosed by its decision in United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, where the court addressed the same issue and held that the mens rea element requirement in 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2) does not apply to the interstate-commerce element of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court also rejected defendant's contention that the district court erred in admitting the plea agreements and judgments from his Alabama cases. In this case, the plea agreements and the transcript of the hearing were relevant because they contained multiple statements in which defendant implicated his guilt in the crimes charged in South Dakota. Therefore, those statements were admissible as opposing party statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). Further, the statements are not barred under Rule 410 and 404(b). The court rejected defendant's remaining evidentiary claims because any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Thetford" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to a drug-related charge after the vehicle in which he was a passenger was stopped by the state police and an inventory search revealed a kilogram of cocaine inside the air filter box in the engine compartment. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence, as well as his sentence. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress the cocaine and his post arrest statements to the police where nothing in the record supports defendant's contention that the inventory search was pretextual. The officer's testimony supports a finding that it was standard department procedure for searching an engine compartment to open the air filter box. Further, the officer did not act in bad faith and the search of the car did not violate the Fourth Amendment.The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(a) after finding that defendant "was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive." The court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Ball" on Justia Law

During a search, Garcia-Hernandez told the agents they would find five firearms at his apartment—a .38, .45, .22, and two rifles. Searching his one-bedroom apartment, the agents found two firearms—a .38 and a .22 rifle—and ammunition. The .22 was in the bedroom closet with his clothes, shoes, and other personal belongings. The .22’s serial number was visibly scratched out and unreadable. Several rounds of .22 ammunition were in a dresser beside the bed. Also in the closet were other ammunition of various types and calibers. In the dining area was a backpack with three more firearms. Garcia-Hernandez stipulated to a previous felony conviction that prohibited him from possessing a firearm or ammunition. The jury convicted under of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 924(e) and sections 922(k), 924(a)(1)(B). The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the jury should have been instructed to find he knew the firearm and ammunition were in or affecting interstate commerce and that that the government failed to present sufficient evidence he knew the serial number on the .22 rifle had been obliterated.. View "United States v. Garcia-Hernandez" on Justia Law