Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The district court found that the traffic stop that led to the discovery of the drugs was not an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that, under state law, the officer had a duty not to allow the driver or defendant, who were unlicensed, to drive the vehicle at issue; preventing them from driving off without a license is lawful enforcement of the law, not unlawful detention; and what prolonged the stop was not the officer's desire to search the vehicle but the fact that both occupants of it could not lawfully drive it away. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court correctly determined that the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Vargas" on Justia Law

Defendants Votrobek and Castellanos were convicted of conspiring to distribute drugs; conspiring to launder money; and substantive charges of money laundering and maintaining a place for unlawful drug distribution. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their involvement in a "pill mill" business. The court rejected Votrobek's argument that his conspiracy charges in the Northern District of Georgia arose from the same conspiracy for which he was acquitted in the Middle District of Florida and thus are barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Rather, based on (1) the absence of temporal overlap, (2) the lack of any common co-conspirators, (3) the additional substances distributed in Georgia, (4) the different overt acts, and (5) the entirely separate locations of the clinics, the court concluded the government has established the existence of two separate conspiracies. Therefore, Votrobek's conviction was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court rejected Castellanos' claims of error based on the district court's denial of his request for a Franks v. Delaware hearing where Castellanos failed to make a substantial showing that the agent's statements were knowingly and intentionally false or made in reckless disregard for the truth, and failed to show that the affidavit lacked probable cause absent the challenged material. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Castellanos' request to instruct the jury on the entrapment-by-estoppel defense where that issue was not properly before the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Votrobek" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 600 month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of production of child pornography and one count of receipt of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not err by applying a four-level enhancement under USSG 2G2.1(b)(4) for an offense that involves sadistic or masochistic conduct. The court explained that defendant's offense involved such conduct regardless of whether the conduct (among other things, whipping and bondage) was directed at him or the minor victim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Scheels" on Justia Law

Defendant contends that a Florida conviction for aggravated assault, Fla. Stat. 784.021, does not constitute a “crime of violence” under USSG. 2K2.1(a)(2) cmt. n.1. The court concluded, however, that defendant's argument is foreclosed by Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI, where Turner addressed the elements of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(i), and that clause is identical to the elements clause of section 4B1.2(a)(1). Because Turner is binding, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Golden" on Justia Law

Defendant, an attorney, appealed his conviction and sentence after being convicted of mail, wire, and securities fraud. The convictions were based on evidence that he fabricated press releases and purchase orders to inflate the stock price of his client Signalife, a publicly-traded manufacturer of medical devices. The court rejected defendant's Brady v. Maryland claim, finding that defendant identified only one potential Brady document, which contained no information favorable to him and was accessible through reasonable diligence before trial. Furthermore, defendant failed to identify any suppressed material or any materially false testimony on which the government relied, purportedly in violation of Giglio v. United States. In regard to defendant's sentence, the court concluded that the district court erred in calculating an actual loss figure based on the losses of all investors under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. 3663A, and failed to determine whether intervening events caused the Signalife stock price to drop and, if so, whether these events were unforeseeable such that their effects should be subtracted from the actual loss figure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded with instructions. View "United States v. Stein" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 36 months in prison after pleading guilty to illegal reentry after deportation. The district court applied a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for reentering the United States after having been deported for a “crime of violence.” The court held that Florida’s inclusion of curtilage in its definition of dwelling makes its burglary of a dwelling offense non-generic. The court further concluded that the district court erred in applying the modified categorical approach to determine that defendant's Florida conviction for second degree burglary of a dwelling is a crime of violence. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Garcia-Martinez" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and using or carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. On appeal, defendant challenges his convictions and total sentence of life imprisonment. Defendant argues that the district court erred by failing to dismiss his indictment pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161–3174. The court concluded that, given the Supreme Court's controlling decision in Zedner v. United States, in granting a one-year continuance, the district court failed to comply with the Speedy Trial Act. The Supreme Court found in Zedner that “the Act requires express findings,” and “without on-the-record findings, there can be no exclusion” of time past the 70-day requirement because the Speedy Trial Act, with “procedural strictness,” “demands on-the-record [ends-of-justice] findings.” Accordingly, the court concluded that the indictment must be dismissed. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice. View "United States v. Ammar" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of firearms and was sentenced to 288 months in prison. The district court determined that defendant was an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), because he had at least three prior Georgia burglary convictions, each of which qualified as a predicate “violent felony” under the enumerated crimes provision of the ACCA. The court concluded that defendant's state court indictments make clear that defendant's Georgia burglary convictions involved these three elements: (1) an unlawful entry (2) into a dwelling house or building (3) with intent to commit a crime therein. The court explained that these elements substantially conform to the generic definition of burglary. Therefore, the court concluded that defendant's prior Georgia burglary convictions qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA’s enumerated crimes clause. Because the district court did not err in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gundy" on Justia Law

Defendants were charged and found guilty of several counts in an eight-count superseding indictment. The verdict forms that were given to the jury mistakenly listed one of the counts as “robbery” instead of “using a firearm during and in relation to [a robbery].” After the district court learned of the error, it gave the parties notice and amended the judgments under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, defendants argue that the amendment was improper and that the original (erroneous) judgments should be reinstated, consistent with what the jurors found. Applying the district court's application of Rule 36 de novo, the court concluded that, consistent with its analysis in United States v. Diaz, the verdict form error was harmless on the facts of this case, and amending the judgments that were based on those verdict forms is the sort of clerical correction contemplated by Rule 36. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), in part, based on his two convictions for burglary under Florida law. The court concluded, and the government agrees, in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson v. United States and Mathis v. United States, that defendant's burglary convictions cannot support such a sentence. As a categorical matter, a Florida burglary conviction is not a “violent felony” under the ACCA. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the ACCA enhancement. View "United States v. Esprit" on Justia Law