Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder during the course of an aggravated assault, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) in order to appeal the denial of habeas relief. The court concluded that petitioner is not entitled to a COA on his claim that he was denied his constitutional right to present mitigation evidence to the jury under Lockett v. Ohio; not entitled to a COA on his claims under Strickland v. Washington; and not entitled to a COA on his Eighth Amendment claim that his execution would be cruel and unusual in light of his brain injury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's application for a COA. View "Shore v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to attempted illegal reentry by a removed alien. On appeal, defendant challenges the imposition of a four-level enhancement under USSG 2L2.2(b)(3)(A) for using a fraudulently-obtained United States passport card to unlawfully re-enter the country. The court concluded that a passport card is a United States passport within the meaning of section 2L2.2(b)(3)(A), and reading section 2L2.2(b)(3)(A) to include passport cards does not intrude on the State Department’s rule-making authority. Finally, the court rejected defendant's argument that the language of section 2L2.2(b)(3)(A) is ambiguous and the rule of lenity applies. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Casillas-Casillas" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and several substantive counts of health care fraud. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants; the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving the deliberate ignorance instruction; the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting defendants' proposed instruction on the object of the conspiracy; and the court rejected defendant's numerous evidentiary objections. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying an enhancement under USSG 2B1.1 and USSG 3C1.1. Finally, in regard to claims of prosecutorial misconduct, the court found no error by the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Barson, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of illegal reentry and sentenced to 85 months in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court plainly erred by denying him the opportunity to allocute before sentencing. The court concluded that the district court erred in failing to give defendant an allocution opportunity and the error affected defendant's substantial rights. While the court ordinarily remands for resentencing, the court has declined to adopt a blanket rule that once prejudice is found, the error invariably requires correction. In this case, defendant's proffered statements fail to demonstrate an “objective basis” that would have moved the court to grant a lower sentence, and the statements defendant offers on appeal are unlikely to have moved the district court to impose a lower sentence because, in calculating defendant's sentence, the district court gave significant, if not decisive, weight to his repetitive history of violent crime. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Chavez-Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant, a licensed attorney, was convicted of possession with the intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana and sentenced to 144 months in prison. On appeal, defendant argues that the district court committed reversible error by denying him the right of allocution before pronouncing his sentence. In this case, the record does not show that defendant was given a specific and unequivocal opportunity to speak in mitigation of his sentence. The court concluded that the district court's failure to provide defendant the opportunity to allocute before sentencing amounted to plain error that affected his substantial rights, warranting the court’s exercise of discretion to correct the error. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Palacios, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to transport an illegal alien within the United States and two counts of transporting an illegal alien within the United States for the purpose of commercial advantage and private financial gain. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement for "intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person" under USSG 2L1.1(b)(6). The enhancement was for transporting unrestrained illegal aliens for an extremely short distance. The court concluded that the moment defendant started to drive with unrestrained persons lying in the bed of his truck, he subjected them to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Maldonado-Ochoa" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of various counts stemming from their involvement in a child sex trafficking ring. Defendants prostituted underage girls, ranging from fifteen- to seventeen-years-old between May 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. The court affirmed each of the defendant's convictions. However, the court found that the district court’s jury instructions regarding 18 U.S.C. 1591 (Sex Trafficking of Children) constructively amended the indictment. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded Defendant McCullouch's conviction as to that count. View "United States v. Lockhart" on Justia Law

Cesar Bernel-Aveja was convicted of illegal reentry after deportation and appealed his sentence. He argued that his prior 1996 Ohio conviction for burglary did not qualify as "burglary of a dwelling," a specifically enumerated "crime of violence" under United States Sentencing Guideline 2L1.2,1 and therefore that the district court erred in applying a 12-level sentence enhancement. The Fifth Circuit found that Ohio offense for which Bernel-Aveja was convicted could have consisted of unlawful entry with the intent to commit a crime on the premises formed after that unlawful entry. This offense did not come within the "generic" definition of burglary as the Court articulated that definition in the applicable caselaw. Accordingly, the Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Bernel-Aveja" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Efrain Piedra-Morales was caught and pled guilty to illegal reentry. Previously, he had been deported three times from the United States. Piedra-Morales appealed the district court’s application of an eight-level aggravated felony enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) for deportation after an earlier aggravated felony conviction. He contended that his prior convictions for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) were not aggravated felonies because they were predicated on his prior cocaine possession convictions, which were no longer considered aggravated felonies, and as such, his prior illegal reentry convictions are also not aggravated felonies. The Fifth Circuit found no error and affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Piedra-Morales" on Justia Law

In 2015, defendant-appellant Guadalupe Castro and Cynthia Uribe were arrested for transporting six bricks of heroin weighing 5,992 grams in their vehicle, which Castro was driving. In post-arrest interviews, Castro and Uribe admitted to transporting narcotics for a drug trafficking organization (“DTO”). A federal grand jury charged Castro with one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Castro pled guilty. During pre-sentencing, Probation did not recommend a mitigating role adjustment under section 3B1.2 in Castro’s Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”). Despite Castro’s objection, in the PSR’s Addendum, Probation maintained that Castro was not entitled to an adjustment. In a pre-sentencing order and at sentencing, the district court concluded that Castro’s objection was without merit. Castro appealed, asking the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for resentencing because: (1) the district court committed clear error by adopting Probation’s interpretation of section 3B1.2, which Amendment 794 clarifies was the wrong standard because it focuses on the integral nature of Castro’s role in the drug conspiracy; and (2) the court’s error was not harmless. Finding no reversible error, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Castro" on Justia Law