Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States. The court held that Johnson does not apply to the Guidelines for the purpose of permission to file a second or successive 2255 petition. Therefore, the court concluded that petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing that his proposed petition will meet section 2255(h)’s requirements for second or successive petitions. The court denied the application. View "In re: Datrist McCall" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, alleging that his sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), is void in light of Johnson v. United States. The court concluded that, unless post-Descamps binding precedent clearly resolves the residual clause ambiguity the applicant has demonstrated, his application contains a Johnson claim such that his application is due to be granted. When, conversely, it is clear based on the sentencing court’s finding in sentencing the defendant that each predicate conviction qualified under the ACCA’s elements or enumerated crimes clause, or as a serious drug offense, or binding on-point precedent dictated that the predicate offenses categorically qualified under one of these other clauses, then his application does not “contain” a Johnson claim. In these limited circumstances, his application is due to be denied. The court concluded that petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case under Johnson where binding precedent clearly classifies as elements clause offenses the convictions petitioner’s sentencing court relied upon as ACCA predicates. Accordingly, the court denied the application. View "In re: Joseph Rogers, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence, 28 U.S.C. 2255. Petitioner asserts that his claim relies upon a new rule of law, citing Johnson v. United States, and argues that he was denied due process because the district court enhanced his sentence under the now-voided residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), and subjected him to a mandatory minimum 15-year sentence. The court held that it is not enough for a federal prisoner to simply cite Johnson as the basis for the claim or claims he seeks to raise in a second or successive section 2255 motion, but he also must show that he was sentenced, at least in part, under the residual clause and thus that he falls within the new substantive constitutional rule announced in Johnson. In this case, because petitioner's three prior ACCA predicate convictions qualified under the elements clause without regard to the ACCA’s residual clause, petitioner's application does not contain a prima facie claim that his sentence was based on the residual clause, or that his sentence falls within the scope of the substantive ruling in Johnson or that he will benefit from Johnson. Accordingly, the court denied the application. View "In re. Morris Vernell Hires, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a lawful asylee from Cameroon, pled guilty to bank fraud and became removable as an aggravated felon. After petitioner completed his criminal sentence, ICE took custody of him and he has been in ICE detention since February 2, 2012. On appeal, the court addressed an issue of first impression: During their removal proceedings, are criminal aliens, like petitioner, detained under section 1226(c) entitled at any point to a bond hearing under the Due Process Clause? The court held that section 1226(c) contains an implicit temporal limitation against the unreasonably prolonged detention of criminal aliens without an individualized bond hearing. The court then established an approach for determining when the removal proceedings and the resulting section 1226(c) mandatory detention of a criminal alien become unreasonably protracted, triggering the need for a bond hearing. Joining the First, Third, and Sixth Circuits, the court adopted the case-by-case approach in determining whether a detention of a criminal alien has become unreasonable. Section 2241 courts must consult the record and balance the government’s interest in continued detention against the criminal alien’s liberty interest, always seeking to determine whether the alien’s liberty interest has begun to outweigh “any justification for using presumptions to detain him without bond.” If the balance tips in the alien’s favor, the district court must grant the section 2241 habeas petition and order the government to afford the criminal alien an individualized bond inquiry. When detained criminal aliens become entitled to a bond hearing, the agency shall conduct a bond inquiry under the procedures outlined in 8 C.F.R. 1236.1(c)(8) and (d). Finally, applying the court's holdings in petitioner's case, the court concluded that he must receive an immediate bond hearing as habeas relief. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Sopo v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. Petitioner argues that his ACCA-enhanced sentence is void in light of Johnson v. United States because his Florida burglary conviction cannot serve as a predicate offense for the ACCA enhancement in light of Johnson. The court concluded that petitioner has made the requisite prima facie showing because his prior Florida conviction for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling may not qualify as a valid predicate offense after Johnson. Accordingly, the court granted the application. View "In Re: Keith Devon Adams" on Justia Law

Defendants Frantz, Terry, and Chris appealed their convictions and sentences for charges related to their participation in a scheme in which they established a sham tax preparation business. The court concluded that the district court properly denied Frantz’s and Terry’s motions to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop, and evidence seized from the Parkland residence; there was sufficient evidence to support Terry and Chris’s convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy and use of unauthorized access devices to defraud, and aggravated identity theft; the district court did not plainly err in admitting testimony from a SWAT team officer executing a search warrant on the Parkland residence; the district court properly applied the two-level vulnerable victims enhancement pursuant to USSG 3A1.1(b)(1); the district court did not err in denying Terry a minor role sentencing reduction; the district court properly applied a two-level sentencing enhancement because defendants' offenses involved the production or trafficking of unauthorized access devices; and the evidence supports the district court’s loss amount calculation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pierre" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Jamaica and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitioned for review of the BIA's ruling that she is deportable because she pleaded guilty to “theft by taking” in violation of Georgia Code 16-8-2. Petitioner argued that this crime is not “a theft offense” as that term is used in the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), list of grounds for deportation. The BIA initially held that Georgia “theft by taking” doesn’t require property to be taken “without consent,” as is required for generic theft, and ruled that petitioner's violation was not "a theft offense. After this initial ruling, a BIA official granted a motion to reconsider and then ruled the second time around that the crime is generic theft. The court granted the petition and concluded that the BIA determined years ago in a published opinion that theft based on taking property through fraudulently obtained consent is not “without consent.” View "Vassell v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. Petitioner wishes to raise a claim based on a new rule of constitutional law announced in Johnson v. United States in his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The court concluded that petitioner's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) would be valid even if Johnson renders the "crime of violence" definition in section 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutional. Therefore, the court denied the application for leave to file a second or successive motion because petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing that his proposed claim meets the statutory criteria. View "In Re: Charles Hines" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced under 18 U.S.C. 924(c), seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. Petitioner claims that the statute is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States. Given the similarity between section 924(c) and section 924(e), other Courts of Appeals have authorized successive section 2255 petitions based on Johnson in section 924(c) cases. Although this court has not decided if Johnson applies to section 924(c)(3)(B), petitioner has made a prima facie showing that his motion contains a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the court granted the application. View "In Re: Ricardo Pinder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A), seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. The court concluded that petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that he has satisfied the criteria of section 2255(h)(2) where his claim that Descamps v. United States is a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review is unavailing. The court also concluded that petitioner's claim under Johnson v. United States fails to establish the required prima facie showing because, even though Johnson is a new rule of constitutional law that is retroactive, the applicability of petitioner's armed career criminal enhancement does not turn on the validity of the residual clause. Accordingly, the court denied the motion. View "In Re: Edward Thomas" on Justia Law