Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

After defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry following deportation, he objected to the recommendation in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) that he be subject to an eight-level enhancement for having committed an "aggravated felony." The district court sustained the objection, but refused defendant's request that the court order the PSR substantively corrected to reflect the determination that he did not commit an aggravated felony. The court rejected the Government's argument that the appeal is moot because defendant has completed his sentence and has been deported. However, the court held that the district court was not required to order any substantive corrections to the PSR. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ramirez-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to a multi-count indictment for crimes related to his involvement in a fraudulent Medicare scheme. On appeal, defendant challenges his 97 month sentence. The court concluded that defendant's principal argument that using the 2009 Guidelines definition of “victim” to enhance his sentence violates the Ex Post Facto Clause is foreclosed by precedent; defendant waived his argument that even if the 2009 Guidelines apply to his sentence, the Medicare beneficiaries were not “victims” within the meaning of the 2009 definition but were more like co-conspirators; and defendant's remaining claims are without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Shakbazyan" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's determination that petitioner is removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Petitioner had pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to deliver over ten pounds of marijuana in violation of Ark. Code Ann. 5-64-401(a). Section 5-64-401(a) renders it unlawful for any person to purposely, knowingly, or recklessly manufacture, deliver, or possess with the intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance. At issue is whether petitioner's conviction constitutes “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance,” a phrase that the INA has left undefined. The Supreme Court has instructed that in determining what constitutes a “small” amount of marijuana, courts are to utilize their common sense. In this case, the court explained that common sense dictates that ten pounds of marijuana is no “small amount,” particularly in light of the 1.3 grams of marijuana that the Supreme Court declared “small” in Moncrieffe v. Holder. Therefore, the court held that petitioner was convicted of a state felony that constitutes “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance” such that he is an aggravated felon and is ineligible for relief from removal. The court denied the petition. View "Flores-Larrazola v. Lynch" on Justia Law