Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Adan Shamburger pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. Initially, the district court determined an advisory guideline range of 30 to 37 months’ imprisonment but varied upward and imposed a 48-month sentence, citing the lethality of fentanyl, Shamburger's distribution activities, violent tendencies, high risk of recidivism, and criminal history. Following a retroactive amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which altered the calculation of criminal history scores, Shamburger's advisory guideline range was reduced to 24-30 months. Consequently, the district court reduced his sentence to 46 months.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas initially sentenced Shamburger to 48 months. After the Sentencing Commission's Amendment 821, which was made retroactive, the district court reduced his sentence to 46 months. Shamburger argued that the reduction was unreasonable and that the court should have shortened his sentence further, given the new advisory guideline range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing Shamburger's sentence by only two months. The court explained that there is no presumption that a sentence reduction must be proportional to the original sentence within the new advisory range. The district court's decision to impose a sentence close to the original term, despite the lower amended guideline range, was deemed permissible. The appellate court also found no procedural error, as the district court adequately explained its reasoning by referencing its previous discussion of the § 3553(a) factors and the seriousness of the offense conduct. View "United States v. Shamburger" on Justia Law

Two children, a nine-year-old girl and her eight-year-old brother, reported sexual abuse by their stepfather, who lived with them and their mother. After the children disclosed the abuse to a nurse practitioner, law enforcement obtained consent to search the family’s residence, seizing a red iPhone and the children’s bedding. Investigators discovered that the stepfather had shared child pornography via the Mega file-sharing service. Upon questioning, he admitted ownership of the phone, provided its password, and consented to its search. Investigators found videos on the phone and Mega account depicting the children in sexually explicit situations, with the stepfather’s voice directing them. DNA evidence linked him to semen found on the children’s bedding.A grand jury indicted the stepfather on two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of committing those offenses while on the sex offender registry, and one count of possession of child pornography. After a bench trial in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, the court found him guilty on all counts and sentenced him to 720 months in prison and a life term of supervised release.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for two counts, the admission of certain evidence, and the reasonableness of his sentence. The Eighth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, even though the district court did not explicitly address each of the Dost factors for lascivious exhibition. The court also found no abuse of discretion or plain error in the admission of testimony from a prior victim, the nurse practitioner, or the forensic scientist, nor in the admission of a partially completed Miranda waiver form. The sentence was deemed reasonable. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. En Maati" on Justia Law

Federal agents conducted a "buy-bust" operation in Des Moines, Iowa, targeting Aldo Ali Cordova Perez, Jr., who was driving a gold Dodge Durango. During the operation, Cordova Perez attempted to flee, leading to a high-speed chase that ended with his arrest. Officers found a large quantity of methamphetamine in his vehicle and a small bag of marijuana in his pocket. Cordova Perez admitted to using marijuana daily and owning a .22-caliber rifle, which was found in his home.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa tried Cordova Perez on multiple charges, including possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and possessing a firearm as an unlawful drug user. The jury acquitted him of all charges except for the firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The district court denied his motion for acquittal, finding the statute constitutional both facially and as applied, and sentenced him to 36 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the conviction and remanded for further proceedings, citing the need to reassess the as-applied challenge in light of United States v. Cooper. The court instructed the district court to determine whether Cordova Perez's marijuana use caused him to act dangerously or posed a credible threat to others' safety with a firearm. The court emphasized that the district court should make explicit findings on whether his conduct was consistent with historical firearm regulations. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

William Dahl was charged with production and receipt of child pornography based on two separate incidents. In the first, Dahl, then 36, communicated with a 16-year-old girl, S, via social media, provided her with gifts, and received a nude video from her over Snapchat. In the second incident, Dahl engaged in sexually explicit conversations with the mother of a seven-year-old girl, M, who then produced and sent Dahl images of M’s genitals. Dahl admitted to receiving both the video and the images but claimed he intended to turn the images over to police and believed S was 17.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri conducted a bench trial and found Dahl guilty of production of child pornography and two counts of receipt of child pornography. At sentencing, the district court ordered Dahl’s federal sentence to run consecutively to sentences in six pending Missouri state cases. However, the record was unclear as to whether the court intended the federal sentence to run consecutively to state sentences involving the same victims or relevant conduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentencing order. The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the materials received by Dahl constituted child pornography under federal law, applying the Dost factors as required by circuit precedent. The court affirmed Dahl’s convictions. However, because of ambiguity regarding whether the federal sentence was intended to run consecutively to all state sentences or only those unrelated to the federal offenses, the Eighth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for the district court to clarify its sentencing intent. View "United States v. Dahl" on Justia Law

Miguel Alcantar Mercado participated in a drug distribution operation, possessing and distributing over 1,300 grams of heroin and wiring more than $45,000 in drug proceeds. He pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. The United States Probation Office calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment, factoring in his criminal history. The district court sentenced him to 204 months, six months below the Guidelines range, considering both the seriousness of the offense and mitigating factors such as his modest criminal history and family support.Following a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, which revised the calculation of criminal history categories, Alcantar Mercado’s criminal history category was reduced from III to II, making his new Guidelines range 188 to 235 months. This made him eligible for a discretionary sentence reduction. The Probation Office identified him as eligible, noting his good behavior and participation in rehabilitative programs. However, the district court declined to modify his sentence, stating that the variance he received was consistent with the new Guidelines range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The court found that the district court had considered the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and noted Alcantar Mercado’s good behavior. The appellate court held that the district court was not required to provide a lengthy explanation for its decision and that its consideration of the factors was sufficient. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the decision was within the permissible range of discretion. View "United States v. Mercado" on Justia Law

Britt Lander was stopped by police in June 2022, and drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine were found in his vehicle. After being read his Miranda rights, Lander requested the presence of his partner, whom he jokingly referred to as his attorney. The officer denied this request and continued the interrogation, during which Lander made incriminating statements about his involvement in methamphetamine trafficking. Lander was subsequently indicted for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine after a prior felony drug conviction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa denied Lander's motion to suppress his statements, concluding that his waiver of Miranda rights was voluntary and that his request for his partner was not a clear invocation of his right to counsel. The court also denied his motion for a new trial, finding the evidence against him, including testimony from co-conspirators and video evidence, sufficient to support the conviction. Lander was sentenced to 360 months in prison, the bottom of the advisory sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court held that Lander's waiver of his Miranda rights was voluntary, as he appeared to understand the situation despite his claims of intoxication and sleep deprivation. The court also found that Lander's request for his partner was not a clear and unequivocal request for an attorney. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of Lander's motion for a new trial, noting that the testimony of cooperating witnesses was consistent and corroborated by other evidence. Finally, the court found no error in the district court's sentencing calculation and determined that the 360-month sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Lander" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2022, law enforcement in Illinois and Iowa investigated Kpangbala Benyan Blamah after two shooting incidents involving vehicles linked to him. On June 27, a black Toyota Camry was involved in a shooting in Rock Island, Illinois. On August 4, a shooting occurred in Davenport, Iowa, involving a vehicle registered to Blamah’s ex-girlfriend. On August 7, officers observed the Camry at Blamah’s ex-girlfriend’s residence, leading to a chase where Blamah fled, leaving behind a loaded Glock 9mm handgun and several iPhones. A search of the Camry revealed marijuana, a digital scale, and packaging material. Further investigation linked Blamah to drug trafficking activities, including shipping packages containing cocaine from California to Iowa.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa convicted Blamah of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of firearms. The jury found the conspiracy involved five or more kilograms of cocaine. Blamah was sentenced to 360 months in prison. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of evidence from the two shootings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the conspiracy involved more than five kilograms of cocaine, based on intercepted packages, testimony, and text messages. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the firearm possession conviction, noting the proximity of firearms to drugs and expert testimony on the use of firearms in drug trafficking. The court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence from the shootings, as it was intrinsic to the charged offenses. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Blamah" on Justia Law

Wilbur Morrison, Jr. was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child in Indian territory and one count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The district court sentenced him to 480 months’ imprisonment for the sexual abuse counts and 120 months for the assault count, to run concurrently. The court also imposed concurrent supervised release terms of five years for the sexual abuse counts and three years for the assault count, but the written judgment incorrectly stated five years for all counts.Morrison appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by admitting a forensic interview and accompanying testimony, that the evidence was insufficient to convict him on the sexual abuse counts, that his sentence was substantively unreasonable, and that the written judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the forensic interview under the residual exception to the hearsay rule, as it had sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. The court also found that there was sufficient evidence to support Morrison’s convictions for both counts of aggravated sexual abuse, based on the testimonies of the children and the medical evidence presented. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Morrison to 480 months’ imprisonment, as it properly considered the relevant factors.However, the court agreed with Morrison that the written judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement regarding the terms of supervised release. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions on the admission of evidence, the convictions, and the sentence of imprisonment, but vacated the terms of supervised release and remanded the case for the district court to amend its written judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement. View "United States v. Morrison" on Justia Law

In late October 2021, Shamsa Issack was sitting in her car in Fargo, North Dakota, when a man, later identified as Sharmake Mohamed Abdullahi, approached her with a gun and forced her to drive to Moorhead, Minnesota. After attempting to withdraw money from an ATM unsuccessfully, Abdullahi took Issack's cell phone and fled. Issack sought help from bank employees, who called the police. Abdullahi was later arrested and charged with state robbery and kidnapping.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota admitted Issack's statements to bank employees as excited utterances and allowed the jury to hear part of a recording of Issack's conversation with police before striking it from the record. Abdullahi's motion for a mistrial was denied, and he was convicted by a jury of kidnapping and attempted witness tampering. The district court sentenced him to 180 months' imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the kidnapping conviction, finding sufficient evidence that Abdullahi's actions constituted kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). However, the court vacated the attempted witness tampering conviction, concluding that the government failed to prove that Abdullahi contemplated a particular, foreseeable federal proceeding when he made phone calls from state custody. The court held that Abdullahi's actions did not meet the statutory definition of attempted witness tampering under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(1) and 2. View "United States v. Abdullahi" on Justia Law

B.J.S., a Native American born in 2004, was charged with multiple acts of aggravated sexual abuse against his younger sister L.S. between August 2019 and June 2022, when he was 15 to 17 years old. The government filed a juvenile information and moved to transfer the proceedings to adult court. The charges included causing L.S. to engage in sexual acts by force, engaging in sexual acts with L.S. under 12, and causing sexual contact with L.S. under 12 with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse sexual desire.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota granted the government's motion to transfer the case to adult court. B.J.S. moved to dismiss the transfer motion, arguing that the charges did not qualify as "crimes of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 5032. The district court denied his motion and granted the transfer after an evidentiary hearing. B.J.S. appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a), 2241(c), and 2244(a)(5) did not qualify as "crimes of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). The court applied the categorical approach, considering only the statutory elements of the offenses. It found that § 2241(a) was overbroad and indivisible, covering more conduct than § 16(a). Similarly, § 2241(c) and § 2244(a)(5) did not require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person. Consequently, the court concluded that none of the charges met the definition of a "crime of violence" for purposes of § 5032 permissive transfer.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case, determining that the transfer to adult court was not justified. View "United States v. B.J.S." on Justia Law