Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of sex trafficking a minor and was sentenced to 293 months in prison. In this case, the court found that officers had a good faith belief that exigent circumstances justified the request that T-Mobile disclose subscriber information and conduct exigent GPS tracking of a cell phone number. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw and request for reconsideration without a hearing. The district court expressly found at the change-of-plea hearing and in denying the motion to withdraw that defendant entered a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty plea. The court concluded that the district court did not err by imposing an enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice, and in denying a reduction under USSG 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction, and affirmed the sentence because it was procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. McHenry" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted in Iowa state court of first degree murder. After the district court dismissed his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition as untimely, the court granted a certificate of appealability on whether his petition was timely filed and, if not, whether he was entitled to equitable tolling. The court agreed with the district court that the petition was untimely filed where he filed the petition on August 22, 2014, 28 days after the Iowa Supreme Court's decision and 6 days after the one year limitations period had expired; petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances prevented him from timely filing his habeas petition; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's request to appoint independent counsel to advise him on whether to waive any arguments based on his counsel's conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Martin v. Fayram" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes related to child pornography. The court concluded that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress where law enforcement officials had probable cause to search defendant's residence because there was a fair probability that they would unearth evidence of the completed crime in defendant's possession at the time of the search; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting "downthemall" exhibits because the evidence was probative of the charged crimes where it indicated that plaintiff's knowledge of the Tor network and specifically how it could be utilized to access hidden child pornography websites; likewise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Onion Pedo Video Archive evidence; the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts that he knowingly received, accessed with intent to view, and possessed child pornography; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Huyck" on Justia Law

Defendant was civilly committed under 18 U.S.C. 4243 after he was found not guilty by reason of insanity of false personation of a federal officer. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's order denying him discharge from a psychiatric hospital. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the proposed conditions of discharge did not sufficiently address the substantial risk that defendant would stop taking his medications, decompensate, and cause bodily harm or property damage. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mikawa" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud and one count of money laundering. On appeal, the government challenged defendant's sentence of twelve months and one day of imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The court concluded that defendant violated the parties' plea agreement by arguing for a sentence below the range calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines. Because the breach was material, prejudicial, and not harmless, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing before a different judge. View "United States v. Swisshelm" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 60 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. In this case, the district court carefully considered whether defendant had made an effort to improve his respect for the law given his criminal history, whether a sentence of imprisonment within the advisory Guidelines range would promote respect for the law, and whether a sentence of imprisonment within the advisory Guidelines range would adequately protect the public from defendant's future offenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bacon" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release and commitment to the Bureau of Prisons for 8 months followed by one year of supervised release. Defendant, while on a previous term of supervised release, left a voice mail soliciting his daughter to commit an assault on his behalf. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding these facts, taken together, show by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated a condition of his supervised release. Furthermore, defendant's 8 month term of imprisonment was substantively reasonable where the district court explicitly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Petersen" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of production of child pornography and was sentenced to 354 months in prison. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence and the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2251 based on his prior conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree. The court concluded that the information used to establish probable cause was not stale where the warrant, issued eleven months after defendant took the photos of the victim, was not based on stale information; even if the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause, the Leon good-faith exception prevents suppression of the seized evidence; and the Government met its burden to show any error by the district court in applying the sentencing enhancement was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional and statutory rights by defendants. Plaintiff also sought certification of a class action suit against the United States Attorney General on behalf of African-Americans in Arkansas subjected to equal protection and due process violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff alleged that the AG Defendants violated his due process rights when they accessed his sealed trial records. The district court concluded, however, that none of the actions taken by the AG Defendants amount to a brutal abuse of power. In this case, the AG Defendants acted reasonably, particularly in light of Arkansas caselaw allowing the use of expunged records to impeach testimony when the actual innocence of the witness has not been shown. Because the AG Defendants' conduct failed to shock the conscience, no substantive due process violation occurred. Furthermore, because plaintiff had no state-created liberty interest created by the Arkansas expungement statute for the AG Defendants to violate, the AG Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim. The court rejected plaintiff's defamation claim against Attorney General McDaniel because he is entitled to absolute legislative immunity. Finally, plaintiff's Brady v. Maryland claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, are time-barred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Buckley v. Ray" on Justia Law

Defendant was ordered to pay restitution of almost $500,000 after he pled guilty to bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. The court concluded that, although the district court missed the 90-day deadline, the district court retained its power to order restitution; the government failed to provide sufficient evidence of the ultimate losses defendant caused the victim banks; and since more than four years have passed after defendant was originally sentenced, and in the interest of finality, the court declined to remand for a third restitution proceeding. Therefore, the court vacated the restitution amount. View "United States v. Adejumo" on Justia Law