Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence of 92 years of imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to a series of counts involving bank fraud. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in making a finding of second degree murder and the court rejected defendant's claims of evidentiary errors. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in calculating defendant's base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines when the district court cross-referenced the guideline in U.S.S.G. 2A1.2, the second degree murder guideline. Further, the upward variance in defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where, absent the application of the cross-reference, defendant's sentence falls within the statutory maximum of the 153 years he could have received but is higher than the six to seven year sentence his initial PSR calculated based on the Guidelines. Defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment challenges are foreclosed by the court's precedent because the court has held that courts can engage in judicial factfinding where the defendant’s sentence ultimately falls within the statutory maximum term. The court further found that defendant's sentence is not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hebert" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of possessing child pornography, appealed the district court's imposition of a supervised release condition that bars him from dating any adult with minor children. The court concluded that the dating restriction was not supported by a factual finding or otherwise clearly substantiated record. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Caravayo" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former Attorney General of Texas, was convicted of mail fraud and of making and filing a false income tax return. The district court entered a protective order during his criminal prosecution covering discovery materials produces by certain victims and third parties. Defendant subsequently moved to modify the protective order to permit the limited disclosure of certain documents. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion because he has not demonstrated good cause to modify the protective order. In this case, defendant failed to show changed circumstances justifying modification. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. Because the court held that defendant's appeal was timely, the court dismissed as moot his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion for an extension of time to appeal. View "United States v. Morales" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex offender and appealed his 15-year term of supervised release. The government concedes that a plain error occurred with respect to the Sentencing Guidelines calculation for the length of defendant’s supervised release term. This court has held that failure to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 18 U.S.C. 2250, does not qualify as a sex offense under U.S.S.G. 5D1.2(b)(2). Further, amendments to the Guidelines clarified that failure to register as a sex offender does not constitute a sex offense. In this case, the error affected defendant's substantial rights. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Putnam" on Justia Law

Defendant, employed as an Adjudication Manager for the Houston Passport Agency, appealed his conviction of two counts of aiding and abetting the making of a false statement in a passport violation. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting lay testimony regarding defendant's conduct and behavior; even if it was error to admit the lay testimony, the error was harmless; and the prosecutor's statements during closing argument was not improper and, even if it were improper, defendant's substantial rights were not affected. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's above-Guidelines sentence of 42 months was procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence. View "United States v. Churchwell" on Justia Law

Movant was sentenced to 15 years in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), as a felon in possession of a firearm with three predicate felonies. After the Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States found the “residual clause” of the ACCA to be unconstitutionally vague, movant sought leave to file a successive writ under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to challenge his sentence. Movant argued that one of his predicate offenses – the robbery – fell under the residual clause, and that his ACCA sentence is therefore invalid after Johnson. The court concluded that after Johnson, defendants similar to movant may, within the bounds of the constitution, face a 15 year sentence – Congress is not “deprived” of that power. Johnson merely mandates that Congress require such punishment with greater clarity – fair notice to persons it engages. Therefore, Johnson is not available to movant on collateral review. Accordingly, the court denied movant's motion to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition. View "In Re: Anthony Williams" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder of a two-year-old girl and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court denied a certificate of appealability (COA) on petitioner's claims of habeas relief regarding the constitutionality of the Texas death penalty; the funding of the prosecution of capital cases; the Texas 12-10 Rule and the law prohibiting jurors from being informed that their individual vote that life is the proper sentence will lead to a life sentence; petitioner's right to an impartial jury and due process; and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Allen’s request for funding to hire experts to help develop his ineffective-assistance claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment on this issue. View "Allen v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for income tax evasion and corrupt interference with the administration of Internal Revenue laws. Defendant was engaged in a tax-avoidance scheme promoted by the Church of Compassionate Service and its senior minister. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it disqualified plaintiff's counsel of choice for non-waivable conflicts of interest. In this case, counsel's actual and potential conflicts of interest could not be overcome by waiver where counsel represented the senior minister and other participants of the tax-avoidance scheme, and counsel borrowed money from the Church and his fee to represent defendant was to be paid with Church funds. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver and subsequently appealed his sentence. The district court sentenced him to 27 months in prison, to be served consecutively to any other sentence, with no term of supervised release. The court concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error by failing to properly consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; the district court's factual findings were supported by the record; and the sentence was substantively reasonable where his within-guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. However, the court sua sponte remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error in the written judgment. View "United States v. Illies" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana and subsequently appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement for possession of the shotgun under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) because there was enough evidence to support that the weapon must have been possessed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. The mere fact that a weapon cannot be attributed to any specific drug trafficker does not decrease the danger of violence. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Guerrero" on Justia Law