Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing defendant’s claim as barred by the waiver provision in the plea agreement. Furthermore, under the court's holding in United States v. Simmons, defendant was not a convicted felon at the time of the offense, and it was therefore not a violation of section 922(g)(1) for defendant to be in possession of a firearm. Therefore, the court concluded that defendant has shown factual innocence as contemplated by Bousley v. United States because he has shown that it is impossible for the government to prove one of the required elements of a section 922(g)(1) charge - that the defendant was a convicted felon at the time of the offense. The court also concluded that defendant has made the requisite showing of actual innocence. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1344. Defendant signed a waiver of appellate rights as part of her plea agreement. Nonetheless, defendant challenged the establishment of her Sentencing Guidelines range on appeal. The court concluded that her waiver provision quite specifically waives the right to appeal the sentence “on any ground, including any issues that relate to the establishment of the advisory Guideline range.” Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. McLaughlin" on Justia Law

Petitioner was arrested for sexually abusing his fourteen-year-old daughter and, during his first interview, he said he needed an attorney. Petitioner was reinterviewed three days later without an attorney present and confessed. With respect to petitioner's sexual abuse charges, the court found that petitioner has demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel under both the deficient performance and prejudice prongs of Strickland v. Washington, and reversed the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition as to those convictions. The court remanded with instructions that the district court issue petitioner a writ of habeas corpus as to the sexual abuse charges unless the Commonwealth endeavors, within a reasonable period of time, to prosecute him in a new trial on those counts without utilizing the confession. With respect to petitioner's convictions on the child pornography charges, the court found that petitioner has not shown a reasonable probability that his confession altered the outcome of his trial, as required to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland, and therefore the court affirmed the district court order in that respect. View "Grueninger v. Director, VDOC" on Justia Law

Defendants David James Williams, III and Kristin Deantanetta Williams appealed from their conviction and sentence to one count of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Both defendants stipulated to a sentence of 120 months in prison pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court found no error in the convictions and affirmed the judgment. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review Kristin's sentence because a sentence imposed pursuant to the terms of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement may only be reviewed if it is unlawful or expressly based on the United States Sentencing Guidelines. In this case, nowhere in the agreement is there a Guidelines-based calculation of an imprisonment term. Consequently, the sentence was not “imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines,” and no provision under 18 U.S.C. 3742 permits the court to review the reasonableness of her sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and dismissed in part. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendants Moore and Latham appealed convictions for their participation in a murder-for-hire plot targeting Latham's estranged wife. The court held that the jury instructions did not constructively amend the indictment in this case where the jury could not reasonably have concluded that it was free to convict defendants under the uncharged, undefined facilities prong of the murder-for-hire statute. In regard to defendants' evidentiary challenges, the court concluded that there was no error in admitting a government witness's out-of-court statements, and there was no error in admitting certain character evidence where defendants elicited some of the testimony at issue and the district court required the government to correct any misperceptions engendered by the evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. 875(b), which makes it a felony to transmit threats in interstate commerce with the intent to extort, and one count of the lesser offense of transmitting a threat (without the intent to extort), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 875(c). The court concluded that the district court erroneously instructed the jury that it could convict defendant under section 875(c) if he transmitted a true threat in interstate commerce, without regard to his subjective intent. However, the court concluded that the error was harmless because the record contains no evidence that could rationally lead a jury to conclude that the sender of the e-mail at issue intended to do anything other than threaten the recipient, and because the jury concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was indeed the sender. In regard to the three section 875(b) convictions, the court concluded that a defendant may not threaten to injure or kidnap a person to collect a debt, even one legitimately due and owing. In this case, defendant was not entitled to have the indictment against him dismissed on the basis of his “claim of right” theory. The court rejected defendant's remaining contentions and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, four counts of wire fraud, five counts of mail fraud, and seven counts of money-laundering. The court affirmed the convictions. However, the court concluded that the district court’s treatment of the Guidelines as mandatory is a significant procedural error. Because the error was not harmless, the court vacated the sentence as procedurally unreasonable and remanded with instructions. Further, when a district court can still conclude that the Guidelines are “no longer advisory,” in the face of such straightforward dictates and the parties’ unanimous objection to its misstatement of law, remanding the case to that court with this court's reminder of the correct law would most likely be “an exercise in futility." Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing with a different judge. View "United States v. Martinovich" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of possession of a firearm as a felon. Defendant received an enhanced 15 year sentence as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(e). After defendant's sentencing, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Johnson v. United States. In light of Johnson, defendant's two North Carolina state convictions for Felony Speeding to elude Arrest no longer constitute valid Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), predicates. Each of defendant's convictions, for which he faced a 19 month term of imprisonment, qualifies as a prior felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Barlow" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to one count of possessing with intent to distribute an unspecified quantity of crack cocaine. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that the search was unconstitutional due to the intentional decision of the officer to tell defendant that there was a search warrant, even though he knew that his statement was untrue. The good faith exception to the exclusionary ruled does not apply in this case where there can be no doubt that a reasonable officer would know that deliberately lying about the existence of a warrant would violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and remanded. View "United States v. Rush" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm as a felon and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the firearm. In this case, the officers activated their vehicle’s emergency lights, trained a spotlight on defendant, and drew their weapons. Considering the totality of the circumstances, no reasonable person in defendant's position would have felt free to terminate the encounter. Thus, the district court committed no error in finding that the officers demonstrated a show of authority sufficient to implicate the Fourth Amendment. The court held that, under controlling Supreme Court precedent, when an individual attempts to evade a seizure and reveals evidence or contraband prior to submission to police authority, the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not apply. The court concluded that, under the totality of the facts as found by the district court in this case, walking away from police with a loaded gun in hand, in contravention of police orders, constitutes submission to police authority. Since defendant did not accede to police authority until confronted by an armed officer in front of the vehicle, the gun he discarded prior to that time was not the fruit of the seizure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stover" on Justia Law