Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his 108-month sentence and conditions of his supervised release after pleading guilty to one count of possessing child pornography. The court remanded for the district court to determine whether the Government has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant knowingly used LimeWire in the kind of exchange contemplated by USSG 2G2.2(b)(3)(B). The court vacated the district court’s impositions of lifetime bans on accessing any computer with internet capability and having any unsupervised contact with minors. Shortly after defendant's sentencing, this court found erroneous the same lifetime conditions imposed on a defendant who pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography. If the district court decides to impose similar conditions on remand, it may modify them by, among other things, reducing their duration or conditioning computer usage or contact with minors on court or probation-officer approval. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the denial of his second federal petition for habeas corpus. Defendant claims that he is entitled to relief from his death sentence because Texas law enforcement officers did not inform him of his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) after his 1997 arrest. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that petitioner’s VCCR claim was meritless where petitioner cites no Supreme Court precedent to support his position and this court has rejected claims materially indistinguishable from petitioner's. Because a habeas court is prohibited from granting relief on the basis of heretofore unannounced rules of law, the court denied the application for a COA. View "Cardenas v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, seven counts of health care fraud, and seven counts of aggravated identity theft. Defendant was sentenced to 135 months' imprisonment and ordered to pay $599,128.02 in restitution. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of the charges, and the district court did abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial without first holding an evidentiary hearing where defendant's arguments rest on either non-exculpatory testimony or conclusory assertions. However, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by calculating the total loss suffered by the victims because the district court procedurally erred by failing to credit defendant for the fair market value of legitimate health care services that his hospitals rendered to patients. Therefore, the court vacated defendant's sentence, as well as the restitution order. The court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Mahmood" on Justia Law

Defendant, in an attempt to shield a residential property from foreclosure, transferred his assets through two entities and caused three bankruptcies to be filed. The district court convicted defendant of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 157(3). The court rejected defendant's claims regarding constructive amendments to the indictment, concluding that defendant's conviction was based on the 2007 scheme to defraud alleged in the indictment and not a different or broader scheme; the district court did not plainly err in formulating the elements of the bankruptcy fraud conviction; and the district court’s formulation of the indictment’s misrepresentation did not constructively amend the indictment, and there is no plain error. Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant and the district court's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Chaker" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for one count of possession of child pornography and four counts of attempt to receive child pornography. The court affirmed the district court's admission of the out-of-court statements of a child victim to a Texas-certified Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), holding that, in light of Ohio v. Clark, the child's statements to the SANE were non-testimonial. Therefore, defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation right was not violated. View "United States v. Barker" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) as time-barred. Defendant contends that he was "found" for purposes of section 1326(a) on August 11, 2003, when the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative was filed. The court concluded that the specific questions in the I-130 Form that were to be answered only if defendant was physically present in the United States were left blank, supporting the inference that defendant was not present. Therefore, the district court did not clearly err in finding immigration authorities had neither discovered nor noted defendant’s physical presence in 2003. The court noted that it was not ruling categorically that an I-130 Form can never create the basis for actual knowledge of physical presence. The court is only affirming a finding in this case that the document did not put officials on notice. View "United States v. Ramirez-Salazar" on Justia Law

Defendants Andrew Mokoro, Herman Ogoti, Alfonso Ongaga, and Rebmann Ongaga appealed their separate convictions for conspiracy to commit marriage fraud and related offenses. Defendant, Kenyan nationals, married members of a closely connected group of American women to gain residency and citizenship. Defendants then prepared fraudulent immigration forms and took additional steps to make their marriages appear legitimate. The evidence further showed that defendants sought to procure American spouses for other Kenyan nationals - some residing in the United States, others residing in Kenya - for the same purpose. The court affirmed defendants' conviction of Count One for conspiracy to commit marriage fraud; concluding that marriage fraud is not a continuing offense, the court held that the charges of marriage fraud against Ogoti and Rebmann were untimely and should be dismissed, and therefore reversed Ogoti’s and Rebmann’s motions for acquittal on Counts Two and Three, respectively, and vacated their convictions on those counts; the court affirmed Mokoro's conviction as to Count Four for marriage fraud, Ogoti's conviction under Count Five for visa fraud, and Mokoro and Rebmann's conviction as to Counts Six and Seven for visa fraud; and rejected defendants' Batson v. Kentucky claims where defendants have failed to show that the district court clearly erred in finding that the peremptory strike at issue was not purposefully discriminatory. View "United States v. Ongaga" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of illegal reentry of a previously deported aggravated felon. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a traffic stop. The court concluded that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress because defendant did not challenge the district court’s finding that the traffic stop conformed with the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Del Castillo-Barron" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after the district court held that his prior conviction for attempted kidnapping under Florida law constituted a crime of violence pursuant to USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The court concluded that defendant's kidnapping conviction does not qualify as a crime of violence where the Florida statute does not qualify as an enumerated offense of kidnapping, and Florida’s kidnapping statute can be violated without the use of force. This sentencing error was not harmless and therefore, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez-Romero" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for sexual battery, domestic violence, and aggravated assault of his 16-year-old daughter, while he was on supervised release for failing to register as a sex offender. The district court revoked his supervised release, and imposed a two-year sentence and a life term of supervised release with several special conditions. The court found no procedural or substantive error with the district court’s imposition of a life term of supervised release. The court further found that the special conditions of his supervised release requiring that he: 1) participate in a sex offender treatment and monitoring program; 2) submit to polygraph tests; 3) refrain from living within 3,000 feet of places frequented by minors; and 4) submit to warrantless searches of his computer and other electronic devices, are substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Winding" on Justia Law