Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Mathis v. United States. The court vacated the sentence and remanded to the district court to determine whether defendant's second-degree burglary convictions were "of a building," and thus violent felonies under the ACCA. View "United States v. Preston Phillips" on Justia Law

Defendant moved to dismiss charges of federal felony offenses, arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because a 1905 Act of Congress diminished the Red Lake Reservation, removing the town of Redby from Indian country. The district court denied the motion and defendant conditionally plead guilty. The court concluded that the record did not adequately support the district court’s determination that Redby is part of Indian country as a matter of law. Therefore, the court vacated the order, allowed defendant to withdraw his plea, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that defendant's indictment sufficiently charged him with unlawful possession of a firearm, set out the necessary elements for unlawful possession, and fairly informed defendant of the charge he was facing. The court also concluded that the district court correctly followed precedent and applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), enhancement where this court has unequivocally rejected defendant's argument that the jury must find the convictions used to enhance a sentence were committed on separate occasions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wyatt" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 360 month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court erred in relying on unproven, objected-to facts by relying on defendant's unproven conviction for second degree sexual abuse as a juvenile; the conviction was only one basis for denying defendant's requested downward variance; and defendant failed to establish a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable sentence if the district court had not relied on his unproven prior conviction. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence came within the guideline range and was amply supported by the record. Because defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cottrell" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting screenshots representing the online content of a website; the district court did not commit reversible error by admitting the Government's Exhibit 51, a summary chart containing information regarding the investigation; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's requested instruction regarding the term "distribute;" and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial or his request for an evidentiary hearing because he failed to establish juror bias or misconduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Needham" on Justia Law

Defendants Delgrosso and Cain were convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Delgrosso also was found guilty of failing to file IRS Form 8300. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motions for a new trial based on Jerry Wright's post-trial affidavit because, even if Wright testified or the affidavit were admitted, the Government could impeach Wright's credibility by introducing evidence of his seven prior felony convictions. Furthermore, even if the jury believed Wright's statements, that does not mean that it would likely acquit defendants. In this case, the Government provided ample evidence that would allow the jury to conclude that Delgrosso and Cain knew or willfully blinded themselves to the fact that Wright acquired his cash through drug sales. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Delgrosso's motion for a new trial based on Government misconduct under Brady v. Maryland where it was untimely and, even if it was timely, his allegations either relate to issues that were irrelevant or were directly contradicted; the district court did not plainly err by instructing the jury on willful blindness; the district court did not err in denying Delgrosso's motion for acquittal where sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict; and the district court did not clearly err in denying Delgrosso safety-valve relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Delgrosso" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her 48 month sentence and conviction for assaulting a federal officer with her car. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the conviction; the district court properly denied admitting a video statement defendant made to a VA investigator because the probative value of additional relevant evidence of intent and credibility was substantially outweighed by its cumulative nature; the district court did not err in its degree-of-injury finding; the district court did not err in applying USSG 2A2.2 for aggravated assault rather than for obstructing or impeding officers, a six-level official victim enhancement under USSG 3A1.2(c)(1), and a six-level enhancement under USSG 2A2.2(b)(3)(E); and a 48 month sentence achieved through a 140 month downward variance was substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wallace" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 480 months in prison after he was convicted of second degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in crediting a law enforcement officer's testimony that defendant volunteered information regarding his drug use and lack of sleep; evidence regarding defendant's physical and mental health was properly admitted; and, although it was error to admit defendant's response to the officer's question regarding the last time he cut his hair, the admission was harmless. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the victim's prior acts of violence; the district court did not err in denying defendant a surrebuttal closing argument; the district court did not err in considering and explicitly rejecting defendant's request for a variance under USSG 5K2.10, 5K2.10, and under the forthcoming 2016 Sentencing Guidelines; and the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a continuance in order for him to obtain a mental health evaluation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 41 month sentence after being convicted of trafficking in counterfeit mark goods. The court concluded that the district court did not err by including the full value of the goods seized in a Kansas sale in defendant's infringement amount and by applying a twelve-level enhancement; the district court did not err by denying defendant a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility where defendant did not voluntarily terminate or withdraw from his involvement in criminal conduct; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered factors including defendant's continued criminal conduct and the seriousness of the offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jawad" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for multiple drug offenses and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that defendant's drug convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, but defendant's felon in possession conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence where a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant's roommate had a weapon that defendant did not know about; the district court improperly admitted Exhibit 37, an Arkansas Parole Board Waiver of Revocation Form, because the limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to defendant; and admission of Exhibit 37 was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence. Because the court reversed as to the felon in possession conviction, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Ramos" on Justia Law