Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of four counts related to the murder of Erik Comesana, six counts related to a firearm trafficking scheme, and two counts related to possessing a firearm or ammunition while a fugitive from justice. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant conspired with at least one other person to kill Erik; that he killed Erik to prevent Erik from communicating with law enforcement officers regarding defendant's firearm trafficking scheme; and that defendant carried, used, and discharged a firearm, thereby causing Erik’s death. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of the the firearm trafficking offenses. Furthermore, the court concluded that any error in permitting lay opinion evidence does not warrant a new trial where defendant cannot show that correcting the error would have affected the jury's verdict. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not commit an error under the Double Jeopardy clause. The court declined to review defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Campo" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of being a convicted felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, and one count of possessing a stolen firearm. The district court sentenced defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on his six prior Florida armed robbery convictions, each of which qualified as a predicate “violent felony” under the ACCA. The court concluded that the district court did not err in giving the aiding and abetting instruction; the evidence was more than sufficient to allow the jury to draw the reasonable inference that defendant intended to aid Nigel Butler in possessing stolen firearms; even assuming arguendo that Rosemond v. United States somehow applies to aiding and abetting a 18 U.S.C. 922(j) crime, this is enough evidence to warrant the aiding and abetting instruction in defendant's particular case; the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that defendant aided and abetted Butler in the section 922(g) crime and thus the district court's instruction was not reversible error; and the court rejected defendant's remaining claims of error regarding the aiding and abetting instruction. Therefore, the court affirmed defendant's convictions. Finally, the court concluded that court precedent applies to defendant's prior Florida convictions and the court affirmed his sentence. View "United States v. Seabrooks" on Justia Law

After defendant pled guilty to embezzlement by a bank officer or employee, she challenged her sentence, arguing that it violated her constitutional rights and that it was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The court concluded that the district judge abused his discretion by giving significant (indeed, dispositive) weight to defendant's inability to pay restitution. Because the district judge confirmed and reiterated his consideration of defendant's inability to pay restitution as a factor in his order on remand---coupled with his stated belief that defendant's arguments on appeal were “frivolous,” even after having the benefit of reviewing those arguments---it appears the district court may be unable to disregard its improper consideration of that factor or, at least, that it may appear so. Therefore, the court exercised its supervisory powers and remanded for resentencing before a different district judge. View "United States v. Plate" on Justia Law

Defendants Wilchcombe, Rolle, and Beauplaint appealed their convictions for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 100 kilograms or more of marijuana while on board a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Rolle also appeals his conviction for failing to obey a lawful order to heave to his vessel of which he was the master, operator, and person in charge. The court rejected Wilchcombe’s and Rolle’s arguments that the court's interpretation of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. 70503(a) and (b), and 70506(a), violates due process; the statement of no objection (SNO) in this case was sufficient to inform the United States that the Bahamian Government consented to the United States’ exercise of jurisdiction over Rolle’s vessel; while the evidence presented at trial suggests that the Coast Guard may have incorrectly informed the Bahamian Government about the registration documents provided by Rolle to the Coast Guard, there are multiple reasons why this inconsistency does not lead the court to fault the district court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction over defendants; the evidence is sufficient to sustain Wilchcombe’s convictions for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute under the MDLEA; the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a mistrial as to Beauplant and Rolle; the district court properly denied Beauplant's motion to dismiss; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting a DEA agent to testify regarding Beauplant's prior 2010 arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wilchcombe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, including two deputies, after he was arrested for violating an injunction prohibiting his possession of firearms. The deputies were escorting plaintiff's former lover into plaintiff's residence in order to retrieve her personal belongings when they saw the firearms in plain view. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of unlawful entry where the law was not sufficiently clearly established at the time of the alleged violation to give Deputies Harrison and Loucks fair warning that their entry into plaintiff's sunroom under the circumstances of this case would violate his Fourth Amendment rights; Harrison and Loucks are also entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim for unlawful entry into his home from the sunroom where plaintiff consented to the deputies' entry; the district court correctly found that Harrison and Loucks did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights when they seized firearms within his home, because the firearms were in plain view; and the district court correctly found that defendants had at least arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fish v. Brown" on Justia Law

After defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry after being deported, the district court applied a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on defendant's prior Florida conviction for felony battery. The court held that felony battery under Fla. Stat. 784.041 does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under section 2L1.2 when it is committed by mere touching. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Vail-Bailon" on Justia Law

After defendant pled guilty to one count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, he was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), to serve 180 months in prison. The court concluded that United States v. Robinson clearly governs under the prior precedent rule and thus forecloses defendant's appeal of his marijuana conviction under Ala. Code 13A-12-213(a). In Robinson, the court held that a conviction for possession of marijuana for other than personal use under section 13A-12-213(a)(1) qualifies as a serious drug offense under the ACCA. The court also concluded, in accordance with United States v. James, that defendant's conviction for trafficking by possession of at least 28 grams of cocaine, in violation of Ala. Code 13A-12-231, constitutes a serious drug offense and a valid predicate under the ACCA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(B)(ii) and 46 U.S.C. 70503(a), 70506(a) and (b), and one count of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), and 46 U.S.C. 70503(a), 70506(a). The court rejected defendant's claims that jurisdiction did not exist to prosecute him under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. 70503(a)(1), and that the MDLEA is unconstitutional; rejected defendant's claim that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence of mens rea; and rejected defendant's claims that the district court erred by establishing jurisdiction under the MDLEA. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in denying defendant a minor-role reduction under USSG 3B1.2(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. View "United States v. Cruickshank" on Justia Law

The Secretary appeals the district court's grant of federal habeas relief to petitioner based on petitioner's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) when his trial attorney advised him to turn down the State’s plea offer and proceed to trial based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant state law. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that post-conviction counsel’s failure to take any step to investigate the IAC-trial claim was objectively unreasonable in light of the information that petitioner had provided him and, indeed, based on even the most cursory review of the trial record. View "Sullivan v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant challenged his 240 month sentence, claiming that the sentence was imposed in error because the government did not file a proper information under 21 U.S.C. 851 to support his enhanced sentence. The court held that a defendant may waive section 851's requirements and the record established that defendant knowingly waived his right to appeal his sentence. Therefore, the court dismissed defendant's appeal. The court concluded that, even if it found that defendant had not knowingly waived his right to challenge his sentence, defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing that the district court erred in imposing the sentence. View "United States v. DiFalco" on Justia Law