Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant pleaded guilty to coercion or enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) and was sentenced to 300 months in prison, followed by a life term of supervised release. The court held that the district court did not err in applying an enhancement under USSG 4B1.5 based on defendant's prior deferred adjudication. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence did not not run afoul of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The court explained that defendant's sentence is not grossly disproportionate to his offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mills" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 95 kilograms of marijuana and was sentenced to 57 months in prison. On appeal, defendant contends that because his participation in this drug trafficking offense was limited to carrying a bundle of marijuana on his back across the border between Texas and Mexico, the district court erred in failing to grant a downward adjustment of his offense level. Defendant argues that under USSG 3B1.2, in light of Amendment 794, which became effective on November 1, 2015, he played a minor role in the offense and should have received a two-level reduction. The court concluded that the commentary to section 3B1.2, including the explanations in Amendment 794 for the revisions to that commentary, does not require, as a matter of law, that an adjustment must be made for transporters such as defendant. The commentary and Amendment 794 instead confirm that there are many factors that a sentencing court should consider, and how those factors are weighed remains within the sentencing court’s discretion. The Guidelines expressly provide that whether to grant a reduction in the offense level based on a defendant’s participation in the offense “involves a determination that is heavily dependent upon the facts of the particular case.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Torres-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty for having been found unlawfully in the United States after deportation after a felony conviction. The district court applied a twelve-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on his Oregon conviction of rape in the third degree. Defendant relies on decisions of the Ninth Circuit that the Oregon offense does not qualify as sexual abuse of a minor because it lacks the abuse element in that it does not expressly prohibit conduct that causes physical or psychological harm in light of the age of the victim. However, the court concluded that those decisions are not binding authority in this circuit and are inconsistent with the court's own precedent. Defendant has failed to show that the district court committed clear or obvious error by finding that the Oregon conviction was categorically sexual abuse of a minor, and thus the district court did not commit any error in applying the twelve-level enhancement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Penaloza-Carlon" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty, without a written agreement, to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. The district court imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 78 months imprisonment and four years of supervised release. Defendant appealed his sentence. The court concluded that defendant abandoned any right to a safety-valve reduction, and he cannot now argue that the district court erred in failing to apply it. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where he has failed to demonstrate that the district court did not consider a sentencing factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to a factor it should have discounted, or made a clear error of judgment when it balanced the relevant factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rodriguez-De La Fuente" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 210 month sentence after being convicted of one count of producing child pornography. The court rejected defendant's argument that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because U.S.S.G. 2G2.1 lacks an empirical basis, because this argument is unavailing under United States v. Miller. The court explained in Miller that it will not reject a Guidelines provision as unreasonable or irrational simply because it is not based on empirical data and even if it leads to some disparities in sentencing. Because the same logic controls in this case, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of crimes related to a murder committed by a drug trafficking operation. In this case, the district court used a special jury question to determine whether any findings of guilt on firearm and murder offenses committed in the course of a drug conspiracy were based on a theory of direct liability, aiding and abetting liability, or conspirator liability under Pinkerton v. United States. The court concluded that the jury's findings of personal liability cannot stand and the court cannot uphold the murder convictions because there might be sufficient evidence to support a Pinkerton theory that the jury rejected. Accordingly, the court vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Gonzales" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court made a clear and obvious error when it relied solely on the presentence report (PSR) in concluding that defendant's previous state conviction warranted sentencing enhancements under 18 U.S.C. 2252A(b)(1) and U.S.S.G. 4B1.5(a). However, the court concluded that the district court’s error in this case did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Therefore, the court declined to exercise its discretion to correct the error and affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Wikkerink" on Justia Law

Plaintiff pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry into the United States. On appeal, defendant challenges the district court’s application of a 16-level sentencing enhancement based on a prior conviction for aggravated burglary under Tennessee law. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the Tennessee conviction, like the Texas offense at issue in United States v. Garcia-Mendez, is equivalent to burglary of a dwelling and is a “crime of violence” for the purposes of USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). View "United States v. Castro-Alfonso" on Justia Law

Defendants Johnson and Everson were charged with conspiracy to prepare false and fraudulent income tax returns. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the Government's initial motion for waiver of a jury trial, there is no constitutional right to a non-jury trial, and defendants failed to assert a claim of prejudice before the district court and their requests for waiver of a jury trial were intelligently made. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err in adopting the PSR’s calculation method in estimating the amount of tax loss generated by defendants' fraudulent activity. Finally, the court concluded that the time frame allotted to defendants to prepare their defense did not constitute plain error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law