Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After defendant pleaded guilty to charges of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, he challenged the district court's denial of his motion to compel disclosure of the identities of confidential informants and his motion to suppress. Defendant also challenged the factual basis of his guilty plea. The court rejected defendant's arguments regarding his motion to compel disclosure and the factual basis of his guilty plea. However, the court vacated defendant's convictions and sentences for additional fact findings, remanding for the district court to determine whether Officer Parkinson included the false statement at issue intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth. If after making the intent finding, the district court again denies defendant's motion to suppress, the district court shall reinstate the convictions and sentences, and defendant may then appeal. View "United States v. Ortega" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2119 and 2, and to one count of using, carrying, or brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). The court concluded that the minimal interstate commerce nexus that the court's precedent requires for prosecution under section 2119 was satisfied, and that carjacking is a "crime of violence" under section 924(c)(1). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant, a federal task force officer, was indicted for manslaughter after he unintentionally shot and killed an unarmed suspect while trying to arrest the suspect. The district court dismissed the indictment, applying the doctrine of Supremacy Clause immunity. The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction according to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, and defendant's assertion of a colorable federal defense; concluded that the district court correctly granted defendant's motion to dismiss because he is entitled to immunity from state prosecution under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution; but noted that, even if a federal officer satisfies every element of the immunity standard, the Supremacy Clause cannot shield the officer from federal consequences, such as prosecution by federal authorities or civil liability under federal law. The court affirmed the judgment. View "State of Texas v. Kleinert" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against law enforcement officers and the city under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights after officers pulled him over for suspicious activity and subsequently arrested him for resisting a search. The district court granted the officers' motion to dismiss all claims. The court could not conclude as a matter of law that plaintiff failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful detention. In this case, the most the officer could have observed was a man (plaintiff) briefly looking around a vehicle in the parking lot, turning to get into a car, noticing a police car, continuing to get into the car, and beginning to drive further into the parking lot. This was not a "headlong flight," nor "evasive" behavior. The court also concluded that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest plaintiff for resisting a search under Texas law, and because no objectively reasonable officer would conclude that such probable cause did exist, the court held that plaintiff has stated a Fourth Amendment claim; and the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from that claim at the motion to dismiss stage. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff did not state a valid claim for retaliation under either the First or Fifth Amendments. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiff's alleged injuries—though perhaps not sufficient on their own to satisfy the de minimis requirement—were enough to support a claim for excessive force at the motion to dismiss stage. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "Alexander v. City of Round Rock" on Justia Law

Defendant, owner of a wholesale salon equipment business, appealed his 36 month sentence after pleading guilty to aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false and fraudulent tax return. The court held that the district court did not clearly err when it determined, based on the circumstantial evidence, that it was more likely than not that defendant participated in his customers' structuring activities. Therefore, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the upward variance to defendant's sentence where the district court explained that it was imposing the above-Guidelines sentence based on a variety of factors, including, inter alia, the magnitude of defendant's dishonesty and unwillingness to abide by society's rules, the aggravated nature of the criminal conduct, and defendant's exceptional business success had a significant foundation in his unlawful activity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Nguyen" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of bank robbery and aiding and abetting thereof. Defendant argued that the district court deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel by allowing him to represent himself and that the court reversibly erred in denying a continuance. The court concluded that defendant's relinquishment of his right to counsel was knowing and intelligent. Therefore, the district court's dismissal of counsel from full representation did not deprive defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a continuance where defendant failed to make the requisite showing of prejudice resulting from the denial of a continuance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mesquiti" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the United States, alleging that the Government violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights by accusing him of a crime during the course of a criminal proceeding in which he was not named a defendant. The district court granted the Government's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that plaintiff's claim accrued when the Government purportedly accused him of criminal activity without indicting him. The court reasoned that to the extent that Doe's failure to initiate suit within the limitations period was the result of his mistaken belief that he could not file suit because his claim had not yet accrued, a mistake of this nature does not provide a valid basis for tolling. Therefore, the continuing violation doctrine was inapplicable here and the statute of limitations barred review of the statements made in 2008 as well as 2012. Finally, the court noted that amending the complaint would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Doe v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 24 month sentence after pleading guilty to being found in the United States after a previous deportation. Defendant argued that the district court inappropriately imposed a sentencing enhancement pursuant to USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), because his prior conviction for exporting defense articles on the United States Munitions List without a license was not a prior aggravated felony for the purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court agreed and concluded that defendant's prior offense was not an aggravated felony under either the categorical or modified categorical approach. The court explained that defendant's criminal history does not support a basis for affirming the erroneous sentence. In this case, the court found that defendant's criminal history, which largely consists of arrests for which the underlying conduct was never charged or the charges were eventually dismissed does not trump the significant sentencing disparity caused by the district court's plain error. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Guillen-Cruz" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, sought a certificate of appealability (COA), challenging the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that no reasonable jurist would debate whether petitioner's trial counsel's decision not to present evidence that he suffers from schizophrenia constituted ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IATC); whether his trial counsel's decision not to present evidence of his steroid use constituted IATC; whether he was eligible for the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia, in light of his purported mental illness; and whether Texas's death-penalty statute unconstitutionally forbids juries from considering mitigating evidence. Therefore, the court denied the application for a COA. View "Rockwell v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of marijuana. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. In this case, officers believed that defendant's obstructed registration sticker violated Louisiana Statutes Annotated 32:53(A)(3). The court explained that it need not determine the proper interpretation of Section 32:53, because Louisiana caselaw establishes that the officers' interpretation, even if mistaken, was objectively reasonable. Therefore, the court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law