Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction for receipt and possession of child pornography. The court concluded that defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when a law officer accessed his IP address and shared files; the district court did not clearly err in concluding that allowing defendant to represent himself, even remotely, would severely compromise his trial; the district court did not err by limiting the testimony of defendant's expert witness, and even if it had erred, defendants' substantial rights were unaffected; and the prosecutor's comments at issue do not justify reversal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Weast" on Justia Law

Defendants Baker and Gluk appealed their convictions for securities fraud. The court held that the district court abused its discretion and committed reversible error by refusing to admit the Latham and SEC reports. The court further concluded that the district court erred by admitting evidence of uncharged fraud that purportedly took place at DiscoCare. Because the court reversed on other grounds, the court need not determine whether this was harmless or reversible error. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Gluk" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for failing to register as a sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration & Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16913. The court concluded that SORNA is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause, and defendant’s conviction may stand even though he never served in the military. Further, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. The court also concluded that, because defendant's proposed jury instruction omits crucial qualifying language from the SMART Guidelines, it would have misled the jury regarding when defendant was required to update his registration. Therefore, the district court correctly rejected the proposed instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of fraudulently receiving and facilitating the transportation, concealment, and sale of ammunition prior to exportation and one count of attempted exportation of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. 554(a). The court concluded that the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in instructing the jury regarding the section 554(a) violation; the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew that the exportation of ammunition to Mexico was contrary to the laws of the United States; and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cardenas" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to failing to file a tax return in 2006 and was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment, one year supervised release, and restitution in the amount of $453,547.00. The district court entered an order directing defendant's ex-wife's employer to withhold the portion of her earnings that accrued prior to the date of the divorce, including paid time off and contributions to her 401(k) and 403(b) retirement plans. The district court subsequently denied the ex-wife's motion to quash the writs of garnishment, as well as a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The court agreed with the district court that the ex-wife did not qualify for relief under I.R.C. 66(c), the "Innocent Spouse" provision, because this provision is only available as an affirmative defense to the government’s efforts to assess a tax deficiency, not when the government is enforcing a criminal judgment. Further, the ex-wife was aware that her husband earned an income as an insurance broker, disqualifying her under the knowledge provision of section 66(c)(3). The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Tilford" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to a single firearm violation and subsequently appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the firearms. Officers arrived at the trailer home of Jaime Garcia to serve a felony arrest warrant for his younger son Yonari. Defendant is the older son of Jaime Garcia. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized from under his mattress where law officers had reasonable suspicion to search under the mattress for Yonari and that neither officer spent more time than necessary to conduct the sweep. View "United States v. Garcia-Lopez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of bribery, honest-services wire fraud, conspiracy to commit bribery and honest-services wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and filing false tax returns. The court found no error in the district court's jury instructions for honest-services wire fraud and defendant's arguments that Skilling v. United States somehow overruled or superseded the court's definition of bribery are unavailing. The amount of a personal money judgment is measured by the proceeds of the defendant’s illegal activity, rather than the amount of assets he retains at the time of sentencing.The court joined its sister circuits in holding that the combined operation of 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. 2461(c) authorizes personal money judgments as a form of criminal forfeiture. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in all respects without affecting the district court’s authority to correct any clerical errors therein. View "United States v. Nagin" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements relating to a credit application and then appealed a restitution order to HUD imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A. The court vacated the restitution order because the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that HUD was directly and proximately harmed by defendant’s false credit application and therefore HUD is not entitled to restitution in this case under the MVRA. View "United States v. Benns" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's finding that he was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). The issues on appeal stem from petitioner's first arrest and conviction when he arrived in Canada after escaping Vietnam. Petitioner was arrested after picking up a friend who possessed cocaine while Le was driving his vehicle. As a result of this arrest, petitioner was fined $700 but served no jail time. Records from his arrest showed that he was convicted of possession of cocaine, a controlled substance offense, although he asserts that he has never used or possessed any illegal drugs. The court concluded that the burden is on petitioner to show that he is eligible for relief; the court treated petitioner's offense as an offense for the possession of cocaine; and the court concluded that he has failed to satisfy the burden of whether the offense qualifies as an offense relating to a controlled substance under the INA. The court also concluded that the BIA did not err in determining that petitioner’s pardon by the Canadian NPC has no bearing on his conviction for immigration purposes. Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Anh Le v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. The court concluded that the evidence of a prior traffic stop is relevant to showing defendant’s knowledge of the drugs in his truck’s hidden compartment at the time of the instant offense and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of the prior traffic stop; any error in admitting evidence of the dog alerting to the hidden compartment during the traffic stop is harmless; and it was not error, plain or otherwise, for the government to rely on an officer's testimony in support of its argument that defendant had knowledge of the cocaine in his truck’s hidden compartment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ramos-Rodriguez" on Justia Law