Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and served his prison term, the probation office petitioned to revoke his supervised release for violating his release terms. Defendant had pleaded "true" to a Supervised Release Violation Report (SRVR) alleging that he possessed controlled substances, intentionally submitted invalid or diluted urine samples, and advised other addicts how to do the same. The court concluded that even if the district court violated defendant's due process right to confrontation by considering hearsay, the district court's consideration of the hearsay did not affect defendant's substantial rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the district court's judgment requiring him, as a special condition of supervised release, to participate in a mental health program and to incur costs associated with such program, based on ability to pay. Assuming arguendo that defendant has satisfied the first three prongs of the plain error test, the court concluded that defendant has not shown that the district court committed reversible plain error because he has not satisfied the stringent fourth prong of the plain error test by demonstrating that any error resulted in a serious prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mendoza-Velasquez" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of illegal reentry after removal, the district court applied a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2L1.2, based on his 2008 conviction of maliciously and willfully discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle in violation of California Penal Code 246. The court concluded that, under the modified categorical approach, the California conviction has as an element, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, and thus his predicate offense is a crime of violence. Consequently, the district court did not err in applying the enhancement and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mendez-Henriquez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for theft from a program receiving federal funds, money laundering, and payment structuring arising out of work he performed for the New Orleans Traffic Court. The court concluded that the evidence presented at trial, taken in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that the elements of 18 U.S.C. 666, theft from a program receiving federal funds, were met. In the alternative, the court concluded that the application of section 666 to the unlawful conduct here is constitutional because the evidence was sufficient to establish an agency relationship between defendant and the entity receiving federal funds according to the statutory definition and the limiting principles described in United States v. Phillips. Finally, the court rejected defendant's evidentiary errors and defendant's challenge to the district court's grant of the government's reverse-Batson challenge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendant challenges, pro se, the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). At the time of the retroactive Guidelines Amendment 782, defendant had already completed his term of imprisonment for the sentence that was eligible for the reduction and was serving time for subsequent offenses. Therefore, the court found that defendant is ineligible for the reduction and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Chapple, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, arguing that the district court erred in determining that his prior New Jersey conviction for endangering the welfare of a child is a crime of violence (COV). The court concluded that even if his conviction was not for sexual abuse of a minor and does not qualify as an aggravated felony, he has also been convicted of illegal reentry and that conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Solano-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to bankruptcy fraud and then appealed his 34 month sentence. The court agreed with the district court that defendant waived his argument that the district court procedurally erred when it enhanced his sentence under USSG 2B1.l(b)(E) based on the intended loss resulting from his improper collection of and attempted improper collection of repayment for filing fees from both his clients and the Chapter 13 Trustee. In this case, at sentencing, defendant forwent his previously raised challenge to the loss calculation when he repeatedly conceded that the eight-level increase for intended loss was appropriate. The court noted that, in any event, defendant would not prevail even if the court reviewed the district court’s sentencing decision for plain error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Collier, II" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of distributing a schedule II controlled substance that resulted in the death of another individual, seeks habeas relief under Burrage v. United States. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that, as a substantive decision narrowing the scope a federal criminal statute, Burrage applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. In this case, based on the indictment and instruction, the court cannot say that the jury found that methadone was a but-for cause of death, nor can it say that what the jury did find was criminal activity. The court explained that it is possible that it found that methadone was merely a contributing cause of death, the exact problem in Burrage. Therefore, the court concluded that petitioner has satisfied her burden to show that she was potentially convicted of a nonexistent offense. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Santillana v. Upton" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against officers and their employers, alleging 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims after plaintiffs were subject to an invasive cavity search. On appeal, Defendant Kindred challenges the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that excessive force had not been waived. In this case, while plaintiffs never used the word "excessive force" in their complaint and were less than clear during the proceedings about exactly what theories they were advancing, they have clearly argued that they were subject to an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and have alleged facts that support a claim for excessive force. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's determination regarding bystander liability. Accordingly, the court dismissed Kindred's appeal. View "Hamilton v. Kindred" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by filing a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The district court dismissed the motion and granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether Descamps v. United States applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. The court held that Descamps did not restart the clock because, even though defendant filed his motion within a year of Descamps, the right defendant asserts was not newly recognized by Descamps. The court agreed with its sister circuits that Descamps did not establish a new rule recognizing a new right under section 2255(f)(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law