Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder in the course of first-degree rape and first-degree robbery, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner contended that counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase of his trial by not investigating and presenting readily available mitigating evidence regarding his traumatizing childhood, mental deficiencies, and steroid abuse. In this case, the especially gruesome nature of the murder, petitioner's efforts to thwart the police investigation, and petitioner's prior double conviction convinced the court that fairminded jurists could agree with the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals that, after reweighing the aggravating factors against the totality of evidence in mitigation, there is no “reasonable probability” that at least two jurors would have changed their recommendation and the sentencing judge would have ruled differently. Therefore, the court held that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals did not render a decision contrary to or resulting in an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law when it determined that petitioner failed to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. View "Ray v. AL, Dep't of Corrections" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner alleges that his claims rely on two separate "areas" of newly discovered evidence: first, in March 2014, he learned that an Ohio inmate named Steven Kasler had confessed to the murder for which petitioner was convicted, and second, petitioner claims that a 2014 report from the DOJ demonstrated that Michael Malone, a former forensic analyst with the FBI, “likely” compromised the physical evidence in his case. The court concluded that, because petitioner's claims do not meet the statutory criteria for relief, and because he is in fact subject to the requirements of section 2244(b)(2), his application must be denied. The court also denied petitioner's motion for stay of execution. View "In re: Oscar Bolin, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to 21 counts of mail fraud, 41 counts of wire fraud, and 4 counts of filing a false tax return. On appeal, defendant challenged his 53 month sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to group defendant's tax offense counts with his wire and mail fraud counts under either (c) or (d) of U.S.S.G. 3D1.2. The court agreed with the majority of circuits and concluded that fraud counts and tax offense counts involving the proceeds of the fraud should not be group together under subsection (c) or (d) of U.S.S.G. 3D1.2. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Doxie" on Justia Law

Defendants Nelson and Snow appealed their sentences imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), after they each pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Both defendants have prior convictions for third-degree burglary under Alabama law. The court concluded that defendants' third-degree burglary convictions do not qualify as a violent felony under the elements-based definition; the court has already held that convictions under the same Alabama statute do not qualify under the enumerated-offenses definition; and the Supreme Court declared the residual clause of the ACCA to be unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion as untimely. The court concluded that, because petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 3(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, he cannot avail himself of the prison mailbox rule and the district court did not err in dismissing his section 2255 motion as time-barred. View "Daniels v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal on his conviction for fraud and misuse of a visa, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1546(a). At issue is the meaning of the phrase “procured by means of,” as it is used in the first paragraph of section 1546(a). The court concluded that a common-sense, practical interpretation of the first paragraph of section 1546(a) criminalizes defendant’s conduct. In this case, a logical nexus is not only present between defendant’s false statement and the ensuing agency action taken on his visa application, but the making of that false statement materially altered the course of the adjudication process. Defendant’s statement was significant to his visa application process. Because defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pirela Pirela" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, appealed his sentence after the district court applied certain enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that felony obstruction under Georgia law is categorically a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA’s elements clause; even counting defendant’s prior cocaine convictions as a single offense for purposes of the ACCA, his record still would have included three qualifying predicate offenses - two convictions for felony obstruction and a conviction for selling cocaine; because the district court’s treatment of defendant’s cocaine convictions did not affect his status as an armed career criminal, it did not affect his advisory guidelines range or sentence; and his sentence of 210 months in prison is substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate on death row, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's order dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court rejected petitioner's claims under United States v. Davis and concluded that nothing in Davis undermines the court's precedent that section 2254 and in turn the requirements of section 2244(b) apply to petitioner's instant habeas petition filed in the district court. Alternatively, the court rejected petitioner's application for permission to file a successive section 2254 petition for numerous reasons. Finally, petitioner has not come close to showing that he is actually innocent and the court rejected his claims as to this issue. The court granted petitioner's request for expedited review, but denied petitioner relief as to his claims. View "Johnson v. Warden" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of habeas corpus, arguing that he is ineligible for the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment and Atkins v. Virginia because he is intellectually disabled. The court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Atkins’s ban on the execution of the intellectually disabled by setting a bright-line IQ cutoff at 70. The court also concluded that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hall v. Florida cannot be applied retroactively. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kilgore v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence for one count of conspiracy to dispense controlled substances, 49 counts of unlawful dispensation of controlled substances, and one count of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. The convictions stemmed from defendant and codefendants' participation in a pill-mill scheme in Garden City. The court rejected defendant's claim that even if he wrote prescriptions for illegal purposes, he did not “dispense” controlled substances or conspire to “dispense” controlled substances, as provided in 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the charges; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting an expert's testimony and, in the alternative, any allegedly objectionable portion of the expert's conclusions did not prejudice defendant and was harmless error; even if the prosecutor’s comments were improper, there was no prejudice in light of the entire record; and there is no cumulative error. Finally, in regard to defendant's sentence, the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court clearly erred in calculating the drug quantity attributable to him; his sentence was substantively unreasonable, and the district court erred in sentencing him more severely for exercising his Sixth Amendment right to trial. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Azmat" on Justia Law