Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants Kenneth and Kimberly Horner, owners and operators of Topcat Towing, were convicted of assisting in the preparation of a fraudulent corporate tax return and filing a false individual income tax return. The court rejected defendants' claim of prosecutorial misconduct and concluded that no Giglio violation occurred in this case; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' two requested jury instructions regarding good faith reliance and due diligence obligations of tax preparers; and the court rejected defendants' evidentiary challenges, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' motion in limine to exclude evidence of structuring cash deposits and false tax returns. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Horner" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of production of child pornography, one count of distribution of child pornography, and one count of possession of child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged the restitution order. The Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act, 18 U.S.C. 2259, mandates that a district court order restitution for crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children. The court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that the victim, defendant's one-year-old daughter, had suffered a loss or in awarding her restitution for future counseling expenses needed to address that loss. The court explained that, given the facts here, it seems that the need for future therapy was not just likely, but a virtual certainty. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Osman" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 84 month sentence after being convicted of one count of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine and one count of distribution of methamphetamine. Defendant argued that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender under USSG 4B1.1. The court concluded that defendant's convictions under section 893.13 of the Florida Statutes, for sale or delivery of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, qualify as predicate "controlled substance offenses" for purposes of the career offender enhancement, and that the Commission did not exceed its statutory authority in defining "controlled substance offense" in a way that includes offenses lacking an element of mens rea regarding the illicit nature of the controlled substance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's application of the career offender enhancement and defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Pridgeon" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 120 month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court rejected defendant's claim that he was entitled to a minor-role reduction because he merely acted as a low-level courier for methamphetamine, concluding that he had facilitated the flow of drugs in the country, he had control over which banks the proceeds from the sale went to, and he was held responsible only for his conduct in the conspiracy; the district court did not err by assessing three criminal history points for his 2001 Nevada felony drug-possession conviction; and, even if the district court erred in calculating defendant's concealing-identity conviction in the computation of his criminal history category, the error was harmless. View "United States v. Monzo" on Justia Law

USSG G1.3(b) requires the district court to "adjust" a defendant's sentence to credit him for time served in state custody on relevant conduct covered by his federal sentence—but only when the defendant has undischarged time remaining on his state sentence. Meanwhile, USSG 5K2.23 allows a district court to exercise discretion to "depart" from a guidelines sentence to reflect credit for time served in state custody on relevant conduct covered by his federal sentence when the related state sentence is completely discharged at the time of federal sentencing. In this case, the court found it unclear whether defendant's state sentence of imprisonment was entirely discharged or whether, instead, defendant had additional state time remaining to be completed. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to resolve that question and, if appropriate, to modify defendant's reduced sentence accordingly. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Murillo" on Justia Law

Defendant Bergman, a licensed physician's assistant employed by ATC, was convicted of conspiracy to commit health care and wire fraud and conspiracy to make false statements relating to health care matters. Defendant Santaya, also employed by ATC, was convicted of conspiracy to commit health care and wire fraud, conspiracy to pay and receive bribes and kickbacks in connection with a federal health care benefit program, and receipt of bribes and kickbacks in connection with a federal health care benefit program. The court concluded that the district court did not err by letting the jury decide whether Bergman withdrew from the conspiracy and in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; the evidence was sufficient to convict Santaya of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and his motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied; it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court or the magistrate judge to deny Santaya's request to strike the entire panel; the court rejected Bergman's evidentiary claims; the court rejected Santaya's claims of prosecutorial misconduct; Bergman's sentence of 180 months in prison and Santaya's sentence of 150 months in prison were reasonable; and the court rejected defendants' remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bergman" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murdering a police officer and sentenced to death, suffered strokes in recent years resulting in significant cognitive and physical decline. Petitioner sought habeas relief, arguing that he was mentally incompetent to be executed under Ford v. Wainwright and Panetti v. Quarterman. The Alabama trial court decided that petitioner was competent to be executed. The court agreed with petitioner that the trial court's decision relied on an unreasonable determination of the facts and involved an unreasonable application of Panetti. The court explained that Panetti required courts to look at whether the prisoner was able to rationally understand the connection between the crime he committed and the punishment he was to receive. In this case, one of the experts testified that due to a mental disorder, petitioner was not able to make this connection, and another expert never addressed this question at all. The court concluded that this record was therefore wholly insufficient to support the trial court's decision. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of habeas relief. View "Madison v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to several drug and firearm charges, and the district court reassigned the case to a new judge for sentencing. Defendant argued that the reassignment was unlawful because the judge initially assigned to the case was neither absent nor disabled. The court rejected this argument and concluded that the text of Rule 25 made clear that the rule does not apply where a defendant pleaded guilty. The court also rejected defendant's arguments that the traffic stop was unlawful, that the district court should have reassigned the case back to the initial judge, and that the district court committed procedural and substantive error when it sentenced defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McCullough" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Florida prisoner sentenced to death, filed a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA), seeking to appeal the denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court denied petitioner's three motions for a COA where reasonable jurists could not debate whether the district court abused its discretion in denying petitioner's Rule 60(b)(6) motion. In this case, petitioner has litigated and re-litigated variations on the same claims for decades. View "Lambrix v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that his earlier motion to vacate was inadequate to test his objection to his sentence enhancement because the court's caselaw about the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), has changed. The court concluded that, because the motion to vacate gave petitioner an opportunity to challenge his sentence enhancement, his remedy was not inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his sentence, regardless of any later change in caselaw. The court joined the Tenth Circuit in applying the law as Congress wrote it and held that a change in caselaw does not make a motion to vacate a prisoner's sentence "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention," 28 U.S.C. 2255(e). Accordingly, the court overruled the Wofford v. Scott test as applied in Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium and Mackey v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, and affirmed the dismissal of the petition for habeas relief. View "McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast" on Justia Law