Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for theft from a program receiving federal funds, money laundering, and payment structuring arising out of work he performed for the New Orleans Traffic Court. The court concluded that the evidence presented at trial, taken in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that the elements of 18 U.S.C. 666, theft from a program receiving federal funds, were met. In the alternative, the court concluded that the application of section 666 to the unlawful conduct here is constitutional because the evidence was sufficient to establish an agency relationship between defendant and the entity receiving federal funds according to the statutory definition and the limiting principles described in United States v. Phillips. Finally, the court rejected defendant's evidentiary errors and defendant's challenge to the district court's grant of the government's reverse-Batson challenge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendant challenges, pro se, the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). At the time of the retroactive Guidelines Amendment 782, defendant had already completed his term of imprisonment for the sentence that was eligible for the reduction and was serving time for subsequent offenses. Therefore, the court found that defendant is ineligible for the reduction and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Chapple, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, arguing that the district court erred in determining that his prior New Jersey conviction for endangering the welfare of a child is a crime of violence (COV). The court concluded that even if his conviction was not for sexual abuse of a minor and does not qualify as an aggravated felony, he has also been convicted of illegal reentry and that conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Solano-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to bankruptcy fraud and then appealed his 34 month sentence. The court agreed with the district court that defendant waived his argument that the district court procedurally erred when it enhanced his sentence under USSG 2B1.l(b)(E) based on the intended loss resulting from his improper collection of and attempted improper collection of repayment for filing fees from both his clients and the Chapter 13 Trustee. In this case, at sentencing, defendant forwent his previously raised challenge to the loss calculation when he repeatedly conceded that the eight-level increase for intended loss was appropriate. The court noted that, in any event, defendant would not prevail even if the court reviewed the district court’s sentencing decision for plain error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Collier, II" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of distributing a schedule II controlled substance that resulted in the death of another individual, seeks habeas relief under Burrage v. United States. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that, as a substantive decision narrowing the scope a federal criminal statute, Burrage applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. In this case, based on the indictment and instruction, the court cannot say that the jury found that methadone was a but-for cause of death, nor can it say that what the jury did find was criminal activity. The court explained that it is possible that it found that methadone was merely a contributing cause of death, the exact problem in Burrage. Therefore, the court concluded that petitioner has satisfied her burden to show that she was potentially convicted of a nonexistent offense. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Santillana v. Upton" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against officers and their employers, alleging 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims after plaintiffs were subject to an invasive cavity search. On appeal, Defendant Kindred challenges the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that excessive force had not been waived. In this case, while plaintiffs never used the word "excessive force" in their complaint and were less than clear during the proceedings about exactly what theories they were advancing, they have clearly argued that they were subject to an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and have alleged facts that support a claim for excessive force. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's determination regarding bystander liability. Accordingly, the court dismissed Kindred's appeal. View "Hamilton v. Kindred" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by filing a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The district court dismissed the motion and granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether Descamps v. United States applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. The court held that Descamps did not restart the clock because, even though defendant filed his motion within a year of Descamps, the right defendant asserts was not newly recognized by Descamps. The court agreed with its sister circuits that Descamps did not establish a new rule recognizing a new right under section 2255(f)(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, the district court attributed loss amounts from nine additional transactions that allegedly occurred within the same scheme to defraud mortgage lenders when calculating her advisory range under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court concluded that defendant failed to demonstrate any ex post facto error in her conviction; the district court did not err when it did not instruct the jury that it must find that Countrywide is a "residential mortgage lender" and there was no constructive amendment; but the the district court erred procedurally in determining that the loss amount for which she was responsible totaled $865,940.18, thereby miscalculating her Sentencing Guidelines advisory range. In this case, the district court clearly erred when it relied on the presentencing report to include the loss amounts for six properties in its calculation of defendant's base offense level. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Hearns" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder during the course of an aggravated assault, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) in order to appeal the denial of habeas relief. The court concluded that petitioner is not entitled to a COA on his claim that he was denied his constitutional right to present mitigation evidence to the jury under Lockett v. Ohio; not entitled to a COA on his claims under Strickland v. Washington; and not entitled to a COA on his Eighth Amendment claim that his execution would be cruel and unusual in light of his brain injury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's application for a COA. View "Shore v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to attempted illegal reentry by a removed alien. On appeal, defendant challenges the imposition of a four-level enhancement under USSG 2L2.2(b)(3)(A) for using a fraudulently-obtained United States passport card to unlawfully re-enter the country. The court concluded that a passport card is a United States passport within the meaning of section 2L2.2(b)(3)(A), and reading section 2L2.2(b)(3)(A) to include passport cards does not intrude on the State Department’s rule-making authority. Finally, the court rejected defendant's argument that the language of section 2L2.2(b)(3)(A) is ambiguous and the rule of lenity applies. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Casillas-Casillas" on Justia Law