Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his 41-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, arguing that the district court erred in imposing a 16-level sentencing enhancement. The enhancement was based on the district court's finding that a prior Ohio conviction for attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor constitutes a crime of violence. The court has previously held that Virginia and Louisiana statutes that lack any mens rea requirement nonetheless fall within the generic definition of “sexual abuse of a minor.” The court concluded that it necessarily follows that a statute like Ohio’s requiring at least a reckless state of mind concerning the age of the victim qualifies as “sexual abuse of a minor.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rivas" on Justia Law

After defendant plead guilty to illegal reentry, he challenged the district court’s determination that his underlying Missouri conviction for sexual misconduct involving a child qualified as a crime of violence, specifically sexual abuse of a minor, under the Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant argued that the statute does not require proof that the victim was a child and, thus, does not fall within the generic definition of sexual abuse of a minor. Applying the modified categorical approach, the court concluded that defendant failed to show a realistic probability that Missouri would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of sexual abuse of a minor based on the peace officer provision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lara-Martinez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326. The court held, in Nieto Hernandez v. Holder, that Texas Penal Code 46.04 prohibiting possession of a firearm by a felon qualifies as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43). Because the court is bound by the holding in Nieto Hernandez, and defendant's new arguments provide no basis to depart from precedent, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Castillo-Rivera" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and related charges, challenged the constitutionality of his confinement and death sentence in federal district court. The court denied a certificate of appealability (COA) on petitioner's first claim that the state violated the Constitution in striking a potential juror on the purported basis of her work with a prison ministry group where the claim is defaulted; denied a COA on petitioner's second claim that the trial court caused the jurors to misapprehend the proper mechanics of the punishment-phase voting process where the claim is defaulted and meritless; granted a COA on petitioner's third claim that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by omitting a statutorily required jury instruction where the claim is adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further; and granted a COA on petitioner's fourth claim that his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the trial court’s incomplete jury instructions where the issue of prejudice is adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. View "Young v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempting to fraudulently possess fifteen or more unauthorized access devices. The court concluded that the district court did not plainly err in declining to apply a three-level attempt adjustment under U.S.S.G. 2X1.1(b)(1) where there is no merit to defendant's contention that his offense was only partially completed under section 2X1.1, comment. (n.4). The court concluded that United States v. Thomas is analogous to defendant's situation where Thomas involved the completed offense of the possession of stolen mail, which likewise does not require actual loss as an element. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Popa" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction after pleading guilty to one count of producing and attempting to produce child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and 2. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court erred in accepting his plea because the video in question did not satisfy the “sexually explicit conduct” element of section 2251(a). In this case, the record unequivocally establishes qualitative and quantitative distinctions between defendant's actions and those of the defendant in United States v. Steen. The court agreed with the Government that Steen did not adopt a special per se rule for surreptitious recording cases that requires an affirmative display or sexual act by a minor. Because Steen does not compel the interpretation of section 2251(a) and “lascivious exhibition” that defendant now advances, he cannot show that the district court plainly erred in accepting his plea. The court also rejected defendant's argument that the district court plainly erred in accepting his guilty plea because his admission that the phone he used to record the victim was manufactured outside of Texas was insufficient to satisfy section 2251(a)’s interstate commerce requirement. The court rejected the argument based on the cases cited and analysis articulated in United States v. Looney. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McCall" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of manslaughter, appealed the denial of his habeas petition. The court concluded that petitioner's claims are defaulted, but Louisiana prisoners can benefit from the Martinez/Trevino exception to the procedural-default rule if they can show that they have a substantial ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim and received IAC from state habeas counsel. Because the court cannot adequately evaluate, in the first instance, petitioner's factual allegations against his trial and state habeas lawyers, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to determine whether petitioner has satisfied the remaining two requirements to show cause for procedural default under Martinez and Trevino and to conduct proceedings as needed. View "Coleman v. Goodwin" on Justia Law

Defendants Gladstone and Jacqueline Morrison appeal their convictions for conspiring to submit fraudulent tax returns, aiding and abetting the filing of numerous false returns, and wire fraud in connection with the attempted sales of the business. The court concluded that the evidence supports all of Gladstone's wire fraud convictions; the district court did not commit reversible error in limiting Jacqueline's testimony; the instances of bias alleged by Jacqueline, alone or taken together, do not rise to the level at which recusal is required; and the court rejected Gladstone's challenges regarding the conduct of the trial judge. Finally, the court rejected Jacqueline's additional claims of error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Morrison" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 188 month sentence, contending that the district court erred in determining that he was a career offender within the meaning of USSG 4B1.1(a). Defendant argues that neither of his prior Texas convictions, one for burglary and the other for delivery of a controlled substance, constitutes a predicate offense under the career-offender guidelines provision. The court concluded, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mathis v. United States, that defendant's conviction for delivery of a controlled substance is not a “controlled substance offense” within the meaning of the Guidelines. Therefore, the career-offender enhancement did not apply based on the record presently before the court. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Hinkle" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death for two murders, requests investigative and expert funding to support a state clemency petition and a successive state habeas petition. The district court denied the motion for funding and also denied petitioner's attorney compensation for her work on petitioner's case. The court concluded that the district court was entitled to conclude that none of the requested funds are reasonably necessary for the preparation of petitioner's clemency petition. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for expert and investigative funding. Furthermore, neither petitioner's appellate briefs nor the brief he filed in the district court explain why investigative or expert funding is necessary to develop the arguments he intends to raise in his successive state habeas petition. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the requested funds. Finally, the court concluded that, because counsel acted within the scope of her appointment, she is potentially entitled to payment for her services. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order denying CJA vouchers and remanded to allow the district court to decide whether counsel's requested fee constitutes appropriate compensation. View "Wilkins v. Davis" on Justia Law