Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's imposition of a 211 month sentence. The court concluded that defendant's prior offenses for possession of LSD with intent to deliver, burglary of a building, and burglary of a habitation, qualify as predicate felonies for an ACCA sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Herrold" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being illegally present in the United States and the district court applied an eight-level sentencing enhancement because defendant had previously committed an aggravated felony. In Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), violated the constitutional prohibition against vague criminal statutes by defining “violent felony” as any crime that “is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves the use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” At issue for the first time on appeal is whether 18 U.S.C. 16's statutory definition of “crime of violence” is unconstitutionally vague. The court agreed with its sister circuits and held that Section 16's definition is sufficiently similar to the ACCA's language such that it is also unconstitutionally vague. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to an offense related to a scheme to defraud the DOE and the district court ordered each defendant involved in the scheme to pay restitution. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of the Government's proposed application of restitution payments to a codefendant (Otto). The court concluded that a more appropriate mechanism for the court to apply is a hybrid approach to restitution payments where multiple defendants are held liable for injuries caused by a common scheme. In this case, the district court’s concern - that requiring payment from Otto would render both Otto and another codefendant (Reed) responsible for restitution in excess of the loss attributable to their conduct - is misplaced. Payments requested by the defendants encompass overlapping injuries due to each defendant's conduct. The court concluded that any funds received by the defendants should be applied to the total sum owed by all defendants. In doing so, payments from Otto would also reduce the overall sum owed by defendant. Further, the district court's analysis similarly does not align with the Mandatory Victim's Restitution Act's (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A, rules regarding liability apportionment. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Sheets" on Justia Law

On remand, the district court convicted and sentenced defendant for possession of child pornography. In this appeal, defendant contends that the prosecutor plainly erred by personally vouching for the credibility of witnesses and invoking the integrity of his office in order to bolster the state's case. The court concluded that the prosecutor's misconduct seriously affected the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of defendant's proceedings. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence of 70 months after pleading guilty to two federal drug offenses. Defendant raised numerous issues on appeal. The court concluded that the district court’s step-by-step application of the 1:167 gram ratio to calculate the marijuana equivalency of the marijuana butter and the brown chunky substance, and the resulting Guidelines-sentencing range, was sound. Therefore, the court concluded that the sentence was not procedurally unreasonable. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where her sentence was within-Guidelines and defendant's argument failed to take into account the totality of the circumstances surrounding the charged offenses. Finally, the court found no ambiguity in the controlling portions of the Guidelines that would warrant application of the rule of lenity. Here, despite defendant's harshness arguments and novel theory related to the scheme of the Guidelines, USSG 2D1.1’s directives regarding the use of the 1:167 gram ratio to calculate the marijuana equivalency of mixtures or substances containing a detectable amount of THC are clear and unambiguous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Koss" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). In his section 2241 petition, petitioner challenged the sentence imposed following his conviction in 1998 for drug-related offenses, contending that he should be permitted to proceed under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 2255. In this case, petitioner's invocation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, Blakely v. Washington, and Alleyne v. United States, is predicated on his contention that Persaud v. United States announced a change in the law. The court concluded that, because Persaud was not a substantive decision, it does not support petitioner's contention that the particular sentencing errors he complains of are amenable to section 2241 relief in this case. Accordingly, the court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the appeal. View "Robinson v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to numerous gun and drug charges without a plea agreement and was sentenced to 300 months in prison. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his request for appointed counsel under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA), 18 U.S.C. 3006A(c), and the district court's denial of a motion to withdraw by his retained attorney. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court was not required to make a financial inquiry under the CJA regarding his financial eligibility for appointed counsel, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding good cause did not exist for appointment of new counsel. View "United States v. Austin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry. The court concluded that defendant failed to show that the district court plainly erred in determining that his prior conviction for sexual assault subjected defendant to a 20-year statutory maximum sentence. In this case, the court concluded that defendant failed to show that his substantial rights were affected where he argued that the 20 year maximum "could well have influenced the district court's selection of sentence." Because defendant's speculation does not support a finding of reversible plain error, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Castaneda-Lozoya" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 35-month sentence after pleading guilty to illegal presence following removal. The court concluded that, in light of this court’s precedent, as informed by Carlesi, holding that a pardon granted for reasons other than proof of innocence does not vitiate the defendant’s prior crimes or convictions, the court held that the district court did not err in applying the 12-level crime of violence sentencing enhancement under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), for the 1994 pardoned arson conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Munoz-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of brandishing a firearm and subsequently appealed his ten-year sentence. The court concluded that there is uncertainty in the record as to whether the district court intended to impose an upward departure or variance or erroneously believed that the ten-year sentence was within the Sentencing Guidelines, and the government has not shown that any procedural error was harmless. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Juarez" on Justia Law