Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. On appeal, the court considered whether an Anders brief is appropriate when the defense lawyer filing it has confirmed that the government will file a meritorious motion to dismiss the appeal for being untimely. Here, given that the government position on whether to seek dismissal of an untimely appeal is outcome determinative, defendant's counsel conferred with the government and was informed that the government would seek to dismiss the appeal for being untimely. Following United States v. Acquaye, the court held that Anders requirements are satisfied when defense counsel has ascertained and certified that the government would file a meritorious motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. Because counsel in this case has complied with this requirement, the court granted the motion and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. View "United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a ward, arguing that the district court erred when it restricted the time for defendant to complete the peremptory challenge form. In this instance, when voir dire began in the morning, the jury had been extensively questioned, and jurors had been examined and challenged for cause, it was neither legal error nor an abuse of discretion for the district court to require defendant to have his selections ready by the close of voir dire. Therefore, the court concluded that any failure to exercise all statutorily granted strikes might well be ascribed to irresolute counsel and not to a resolute district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Aguilar" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of reentering the United States after deportation and appealed his 50-month sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not plainly err in applying a 16-level enhancement for a prior “drug trafficking offense” under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), which the district court based on his prior conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2 and 21 U.S.C. 843(b) for aiding and abetting the use of a communication facility to facilitate a felony drug offense. Because the underlying drug offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no question that it is an “element” for purposes of United States v. Descamps, rendering section 843(b) divisible and allowing the application of the modified categorical approach. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Martinez-Vidana" on Justia Law

Defendant argued that the district court violated his right to confrontation at his revocation hearing when it allowed a law enforcement officer to testify about an informant’s statements and identification of defendant. In light of defendant's substantial interest in confrontation, the lack of record evidence on the Government’s interest in foregoing confrontation, and the lack of inherent reliability in the hearsay testimony, the court could not find implicit good cause in the record to allow the testimony. In this case, due process does not permit a revocation that is based on hearsay identification testimony from a confidential informant. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Jimison, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement or representation with regards to firearm records and was sentenced to 46 months in prison. The court concluded that, although the district court clearly erred in applying four-level enhancements under USSG 2K2.1(b)(5) and 2K2.1(b)(6), defendant failed to show a reasonable probability that, but for the district court’s error, she would have received a lesser sentence. Therefore, because the error did not affect her substantial rights, the court affirmed the judgment. The court found no merit in defendant's argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the section 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) cross-reference should not apply in her case. View "United States v. Velasquez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for engaging in a commercial sex act with a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591. The court concluded that the district court properly instructed the jury on section 1591's scienter requirements; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial because the court found no Brady violation; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an alibi instruction; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a spoliation instruction; the court rejected defendant's claims regarding the admissibility of rebuttal evidence and claims regarding government statements during closing arguments; and the court concluded that there is no cumulative error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Valas" on Justia Law

Defendants Romans, Moseby, Harden, and Booker were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana. The court concluded that a rational finder of fact could have found that venue in the Eastern District of Texas was proven by a preponderance of the evidence; the Government presented significant evidence of concurring acts, actors, and events from which a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Booker was a member of the charged conspiracy; Harden has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by failing to appoint substitute counsel; Harden’s decision to represent himself was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; Harden has not shown that the district court erred in balancing the sentencing factors or that the Guidelines sentence imposed was an abuse of discretion, nor has he rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that applies to his bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence; and, because Harden’s sentence was not increased under the residual clause, the court need not determine whether, under Johnson v. United States, any part of USSG 4B1.1 is void. The court vacated Moseby's sentence and remanded for resentencing because the application of USSG 2D1.1(b)(1) was clearly erroneous. The court rejected defendants' remaining claims and affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Romans" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Texas prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the Executive Director of the TDCJ violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by failing to protect him from the risk of contracting communicable diseases, including Hepatitis C. Plaintiff, a Native American inmate, claims to have contracted Hepatitis C while participating in a communal pipe-smoking ceremony at the TDCJ’s Beeville, Texas, facility. The district court dismissed plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim without affording him discovery or an opportunity to amend his complaint. In this case, the TDCJ did not have a policy requiring plaintiff to participate in the communal pipe ceremony and plaintiff voluntarily participated in the pipe-smoking ceremony based on his personal religious tenets. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where plaintiff has not demonstrated that the district court erred in finding that a due-process claim would be futile, and amending the complaint to include unidentified TDCJ policymakers as defendants would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Legate v. Livingston" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence stemming from his involvement in a synthetic marijuana distribution ring. Based on the intervening decision in McFadden v. United States, announced after defendant's trial, the court reversed the conviction of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance analogue (CSA) because the district court’s error, in ruling that the government was not required to prove that defendant knew the synthetic marijuana compound distributed by the conspirators was a CSA, was not harmless, despite the decision to send the issue to the jury via a special interrogatory. The court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence on all other counts and remanded. View "United States v. Stanford" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute crystal methamphetamine and appealed his sentence of 360 months in prison. Both parties agree that the district court committed procedural error by applying a sentencing enhancement to defendant’s sentence under USSG 2D1.1(b)(14)(B)(i) (for involving a minor in the crime as an organizer/leader). Because defendant's objection was not preserved, the court reviewed the district court's application of the enhancement for plain error review only. The court held that the district court's reliance on section 2D1.1(b)(14)(B)(i), and the sentencing disparity that it caused, was plain error that “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez" on Justia Law