Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After Jerome Harrell died while in custody at the county jail, Harrell's estate filed suit against the county and various correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of Harrell's constitutional rights as well as other claims. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The court concluded that genuine issues of fact remain on the question of whether defendants Armstrong and Culloton were deliberately indifferent to Harrell's serious medical needs when they allowed him to scream, howl, and bang against his cell door for eight hours without attempting to talk to him or seek medical intervention. Therefore, the district court erred by granting summary judgment to Armstrong and Culloton on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity, and the court reversed as to this issue. The court concluded that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the trustee's excessive force claim where, among other things, Harrell was actively resisting the extraction procedure by ignoring directives to lie down on his bunk and resisting defendants' efforts to subdue him once they entered his cell, and defendants' testimony about the degree of Harrell's resistance was corroborated. Under the totality of these circumstances, none of the defendants' actions, either singly or in combination, amounted to an objectively unreasonable application of force. Therefore, the court affirmed as to the excessive force claim. Because the court was remanding some of the federal claims, the court also vacated the dismissal of the state law claims and remanded. View "Ryan v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

Petitioners Hernandez-Martinez and Dominguez-Herrera, non-permanent residents of the United States and a married couple, sought review of the denial of their consolidated applications for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). The court concluded that petitioners failed to meet their burden under the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4), to establish their eligibility for cancellation of removal where both petitioners have committed a crime involving moral turpitude. In this case, Hernandez-Martinez had been convicted of theft in the municipal court of Hutchinson, Kansas, and Dominguez-Herrera had been convicted of theft in the municipal court of Great Bend, Kansas, which was a criminal offense, and the crimes were punishable by a year or more in prison. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Dominguez-Herrera v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute a mixture or substance containing crack cocaine in an amount of 280 grams or more, and powder cocaine in an amount of 5 kilograms or more. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's drug quantity finding and two sentencing enhancements. The court concluded that the district court did not err in relying on the testimony presented to determine the total drug quantity for purposes of establishing defendant's base offense level; the district court did not err by imposing a two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm under USSG 2D1.1(b)(1); and the district court did not err by imposing a three-level enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b) for his role as a manager or supervisor in the criminal activity. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mannings" on Justia Law

Defendant, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and resident of the Tribe's reservation, appealed her 37 month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of child abuse. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court committed reversible error by failing to rule on her objection to the PSR's recommended two-level increase for the victim's bodily injury pursuant to USSG 2A2.3(b)(1)(A). The court reasoned that an absence of a specific ruling on defendant's objection to the PSR was not by itself a significant procedural error because the record reflected sufficient evidence for the district court's findings to receive meaningful appellate review. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deciding to count defendant's 40 tribal court convictions in reaching its sentence; the district court had an ample basis for discounting her alleged mitigating good behavior, especially considering her virtual repeat offense; and the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court gave an individualized assessment of defendant's criminal history and the circumstances surrounding the conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Velnita Jolette Hairy Chin" on Justia Law

After defendant sexually assaulted a fellow high school student on the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan, he was was indicted in the District of Minnesota, which had jurisdiction under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, 18 U.S.C. 3261 et seq. Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2242(2), 2246(2)(A), and 3261(a)(1), and was sentenced to 60 months in prison followed by the minimum supervised release term of five years. On appeal, defendant challenged two special conditions of supervised release that require him to provide any personal financial information the Probation Office requests and to obtain Probation Office approval before incurring new credit charges or opening additional lines of credit. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the two financial conditions with no explanation and no advance notice, which were not totally related to defendant's offense of conviction and the circumstances surrounding the offense. Accordingly, the court modified the judgment by deleting those conditions and affirmed the judgment as modified. View "United States v. Sherwood" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his ten year sentence for illegally reentering the United States. In 2015, defendant and his codefendant tried to hold up a bakery. Defendant carried a butcher knife to rob the bakery and accidentally ran into a door, stabbing himself in the stomach. Defendant admitted the reentry and robbery were violations of the terms of his supervised release for a 2013 illegal reentry conviction. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider the factors that supported a shorter sentence where the district court, in explaining the sentence and upward variance, repeatedly expressed its concern for defendant's recidivism. The court also concluded that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Hernandez-Pineda" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's amendment to defendant's term of supervised release to require that he submit his person and property to a search upon reasonable suspicion. The court concluded that the district court did not commit plain error in imposing the search condition where it was not clear or obvious under current law that the search condition was not reasonably related to defendant's offenses and criminal history, involved a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary, or was inconsistent with any pertinent policy statements. The court also concluded that the district court did not violate defendant's due process rights or the Ex Post Facto Clause in imposing the non-punitive condition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Winston" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to eight counts of a sixteen count indictment that included wire fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion. Defendant appealed his sentence of 111 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. The court affirmed the sentence but remanded the forfeiture order for further proceedings. The district court, upon rehearing, ordered forfeiture of the entirety of defendant's Castlerock property under 18 U.S.C. 982(a)(1). The court held that the evidence satisfied the requisite nexus between defendant's money-laundering convictions and the entirety of the property at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Beltramea" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after he was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court appropriately used the modified categorical approach in determining that defendant's 2012 conviction of committing violence against another inmate, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 217.385, subd. 1, was a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court reasoned that because the Missouri conviction was a predicate felony under the ACCA, it was also a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Irons" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of a drug offense, appealed the district court's denial of his request for post-conviction relief without granting an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner had moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255(a). The court concluded that the district court did not err by ruling that counsel's cross-examination strategies, closing argument, and challenges to the drug quantities was not constitutionally deficient. The court also concluded that it was not an abuse of discretion by the district court to forgo holding an evidentiary hearing before dismissing the section 2255 motion. Because petitioner was not deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, the court affirmed the dismissal of the section 2255 motion. View "Guzman-Ortiz v. United States" on Justia Law