Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted transfer of obscene material to a minor and was sentenced to 48 months in prison, as well as three years of supervised release. Defendant did not appeal, but moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) from the denial of his motion to modify conditions of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e) and moved this court to modify certain conditions of his supervised release. The court explained that even if defendant's challenge to the special condition prohibiting him from possessing a computer or internet connection device without permission of the court were not premature, he failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in declining to modify the condition. In this case, defendant admitted in the district court that he posted an advertisement soliciting companionship on an internet site and that he emailed a photograph of his penis to a male who he thought was 15 years old. Accordingly, the court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the appeal. The court also denied defendant's motion to modify conditions of supervised release. View "United States v. Doyle" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendant used excessive force against him in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant based on qualified immunity. The court held that plaintiff met his burden of rebutting defendant's qualified immunity defense. The court concluded that plaintiff alleged facts which, when viewed in the manner most favorable to him, would establish a violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force during a seizure. The court also concluded that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident, and that defendant's conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of then-existing clearly established law. In this case, defendant stopped plaintiff for a minor traffic offense and abruptly escalated to a takedown; plaintiff presented no immediate threat or flight of risk; and plaintiff offered, at most, passive resistance, including asking whether he was under arrest. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Hanks v. Rogers" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and illegal reentry into the United States, he appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err by applying an enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of drug distribution under USSG 2D1.1(b)(12). The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err by applying an enhancement for defendant's aggravating role in the offense under USSG 3B1.1(c). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Guzman-Reyes" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on his federal habeas claims. Petitioner claimed prosecutorial misconduct related to references at trial and during his penalty phase to a plea discussion proffer. The court affirmed the district court's analysis and holding that the TCCA's resolution of petitioner's allegation of prosecutorial misconduct was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The court held that any improper passing reference at trial to the proffer (or omissions in it) was harmless. The court also denied petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability as to his allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Whitaker v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of actual methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant argued that the Government breached the plea agreement when it recommended a role reduction but subsequently put on argument and supporting evidence that undermined that recommendation. In this case, the record indicated that the Government complied with its literal obligations under the plea agreement to make certain statements to the court. The court concluded that the Government does not breach a plea agreement by disclosing pertinent factual information to a sentencing court. Furthermore, the plea agreement did not contain any provisions restricting such disclosure. Because there was no error, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Casillas" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of illegal reentry, he received an 8-level enhancement for his sentence under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) for being previously deported after conviction for an aggravated felony. On appeal, defendant argued that Texas Penal Code 46.04 was substantively broader than 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), and was therefore not an "aggravated felony" under the sentencing guidelines. The court concluded that, because defendant had not established a realistic probability that Texas courts would actually apply TPC 46.04 more broadly than section 922(g)(1), his argument that TPC 46.04 was not an aggravated felony for purposes of the sentencing guidelines failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Castillo-Rivera" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to possess and possessing with the intent to distribute marijuana and heroin. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erroneously failed to suppress incriminating evidence that government agents obtained from an allegedly unconstitutional stop and ultimate arrest. The court held that much of the agents' conduct was reasonable and thus constitutional. However, the court held that the district court erred by admitting evidence obtained from an unconstitutional, post-arrest search of a cell phone in defendant's possession. The court found that defendant voluntarily consented to a search of the phone in his possession during the lawful vehicle stop. The court explained that the DEA agent's post-arrest manual search of the phone at the Border Patrol station was a distinct search requiring independent justification. Because the error was harmless, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Escamilla, Jr." on Justia Law

Six defendants appealed their convictions for Medicare fraud, as well as paying and receiving kickbacks for referrals. Defendants' scheme involved fraudulently billing Medicare for services provided at a community mental health center. The court concluded that the district court did not err in declining to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant; the indictment does not present any reversible error; the court rejected claims of evidentiary errors; the court rejected claims of error regarding the jury instructions; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and substantive health care fraud, as well as the kickback counts; there was no Eighth Amendment problem with the forfeiture order; and the court agreed with the government that the district court erred by deciding to offset defendants' restitution obligations with any amount collected pursuant to the forfeiture order. Accordingly, the court modified the restitution and forfeiture orders to eliminate the offset. The court affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "United States v. Sanjar" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two murders and sentenced to death, sought a certificate of appealability (COA) on five claims for habeas relief. The court denied a COA on petitioner's claim that the convicting court unconstitutionally prevented him from informing the jurors about the parole implications of a life sentence, because this claim was foreclosed by circuit precedent. The court also denied a COA on his claim that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to (a) comments by the prosecutor supposedly implicating petitioner's right not to testify and (b) the guilt/innocence-phase discussion of petitioner's extraneous offenses. The court explained that petitioner failed to present a colorable argument that the state court's finding defense counsel’s trial strategy reasonable was unreasonable. The court granted a COA on petitioner's claims that the convicting court unconstitutionally prevented him from presenting mitigating childhood photographs of himself to the jury during the sentencing phase; that the convicting court unconstitutionally permitted the jury to hear testimony about the possibility of release on furlough for capital defendants sentenced to life in prison; and that the State violated Batson v. Kentucky when it exercised racially motivated peremptory strikes against two prospective jurors. View "Rhoades v. Davis" on Justia Law