Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Mohamed Ahmed Hassan was convicted of four counts of bank robbery, with all incidents captured on surveillance cameras. The robberies occurred in January 2022 at Chase Bank branches in San Diego, California. The robber, who wore a face mask and hat in three of the four incidents, demanded money from tellers and escaped with approximately $15,400. Hassan was arrested by the FBI shortly after the fourth robbery. The prosecution presented surveillance footage and rideshare and cell phone records linking Hassan to the crimes.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California held a bench trial after Hassan waived his right to a jury trial. The court found Hassan guilty on all counts, relying primarily on the surveillance footage. The court did not consider the rideshare and cell phone records as conclusive evidence tying Hassan to the robberies. Hassan appealed, arguing that the district court improperly relied on extrinsic evidence by comparing his in-court appearance to the surveillance footage and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the trier of fact may identify a defendant by comparing their in-court appearance to photographic or video evidence. The court found that the district court did not rely on extrinsic evidence and that the visual comparison, along with other available information, was sufficient to establish Hassan's guilt. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction on all counts. View "United States v. Hassan" on Justia Law

Donnie Bryant, a member of a Las Vegas-based street gang, participated in a gang-related shooting at the age of sixteen, resulting in a 70-year prison sentence. He was convicted under the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (VICAR) statute and for using a firearm during a crime of violence. Decades later, Bryant sought compassionate release, arguing that his youth at the time of the offense, a sentencing disparity with his codefendant, and the alleged improper "stacking" of his firearm sentences under the First Step Act constituted "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for relief.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Bryant's motion. The court held that while youth could be considered in an appropriate case, Bryant's crime was not the product of youthful immaturity, and he had not demonstrated significant rehabilitation. The court also found that the sentencing disparity with his codefendant, who received a reduced sentence through a plea deal, was not an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. Additionally, the court rejected Bryant's argument regarding the stacking of his firearm sentences, noting that his sentences were imposed correctly under the law at the time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that a defendant's youth at the time of the offense is not an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court also ruled that a sentencing disparity resulting from a codefendant's guilty plea does not qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason. Lastly, the court clarified that Bryant's sentences for his firearm convictions were not improperly stacked in violation of the First Step Act, as the Act's amendments did not apply to his case. View "United States v. Bryant" on Justia Law

Raul Perez Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, pled guilty to money laundering in 2021 and was sentenced to 144 months in prison. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. He conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on past experiences with cartels and fear of retaliation due to his purported cooperation with the U.S. government.An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his applications for asylum and withholding of removal due to his conviction of a particularly serious crime. The IJ also denied his CAT claim, finding that he did not show it was more likely than not he would be tortured upon return to Mexico, nor that he could not safely relocate within Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing that his fear of future torture was speculative and that there was no due process violation despite technical difficulties during the hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that Perez Cruz did not meet his burden to show he would more likely than not be tortured if returned to Mexico. The court also found that Perez Cruz did not overcome the presumption that the agency reviewed all evidence before it. Additionally, the court was not persuaded by his contention that audio issues during his hearing denied him due process, as there was no demonstration that the IJ prejudicially missed or misunderstood anything said during the hearing. The petition for review was denied. View "Perez Cruz v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Federal agents conducted a sting operation in which Rami Ghanem attempted to export military equipment from the United States to Libya. Ghanem pleaded guilty to six counts, including violations of the Arms Export Control Act, unlawful smuggling, and money laundering. He proceeded to trial on a charge of conspiring to acquire, transport, and use surface-to-air missiles, for which he was found guilty and initially sentenced to 360 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated Ghanem’s conviction on the missile conspiracy charge due to improper jury instructions on venue and remanded the case for resentencing. On remand, the district court recalculated the guidelines range as 78-97 months but imposed the same 360-month sentence, considering the same relevant conduct as before.The Ninth Circuit reviewed Ghanem’s appeal, rejecting his arguments that the district court committed procedural errors at resentencing. The court held that the district court applied the correct legal standards in declining to reduce Ghanem’s offense level for acceptance of responsibility and did not clearly err in finding that Ghanem’s failure to accept responsibility outweighed his guilty plea and truthful admissions. The court also found that the district court adequately explained its sentencing decision, addressed Ghanem’s argument about sentencing disparities, and correctly considered conduct underlying the dismissed charge.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the 360-month sentence, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the sentence was warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court also rejected Ghanem’s constitutional arguments under Apprendi v. New Jersey, holding that the district court’s reliance on conduct underlying the dismissed charge did not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendments. View "United States v. Ghanem" on Justia Law

Vincent Petrushkin pled guilty to possession of a firearm as a felon, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The case arose from a sting operation where Petrushkin, along with Randy Holmes and William Burns, went to a Motel 6 in Spokane. Holmes intended to rob someone and obtained a gun from Burns. Petrushkin briefly held the gun before handing it back to Holmes, who then used it in an attempted robbery, shooting an undercover agent. Petrushkin was charged and pled guilty, with a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver for sentences under 12 months and one day, reserving the right to appeal the reasonableness of a longer sentence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington applied a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1), which allows for a higher base offense level if a firearm is used or possessed in connection with another offense. The court calculated a Guidelines range of 110 to 120 months using this enhancement. Alternatively, it applied a four-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), resulting in a 77 to 96-month range. The court sentenced Petrushkin to 48 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Petrushkin appealed, arguing the enhancement was improperly applied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the appeal waiver did not preclude Petrushkin from challenging the application of the (c)(1) enhancement. The court determined that both clauses of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1) require the government to show that the defendant possessed the firearm in a manner that potentially emboldened or facilitated another offense. The district court did not make such a finding, and the record did not support it. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit vacated Petrushkin’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Petrushkin" on Justia Law

Mark Schena operated Arrayit, a medical testing laboratory in Northern California, which focused on blood tests for allergies. Schena marketed these tests as superior to skin tests, despite their limitations, and billed insurance providers up to $10,000 per test. To maintain a steady flow of patient samples, Schena paid marketers a percentage of the revenue they generated by pitching Arrayit’s services to medical professionals, often misleading them about the tests' efficacy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Schena transitioned to COVID testing, using similar deceptive marketing practices to bundle allergy tests with COVID tests.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Schena’s motion to dismiss the EKRA counts, arguing that his conduct did not violate the statute as a matter of law. The jury convicted Schena on all counts, including conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, healthcare fraud, conspiracy to violate EKRA, EKRA violations, and securities fraud. The district court sentenced Schena to 96 months in prison and ordered him to pay over $24 million in restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed Schena’s convictions. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 220(a)(2)(A) of EKRA covers payments to marketing intermediaries who interface with those who do the referrals, and there is no requirement that the payments be made to a person who interfaces directly with patients. The court also concluded that a percentage-based compensation structure for marketing agents does not violate EKRA per se, but the evidence showed wrongful inducement when Schena paid marketers to unduly influence doctors’ referrals through false or fraudulent representations. The court affirmed Schena’s EKRA and other convictions, vacated in part the restitution order, and remanded in part. View "United States v. Schena" on Justia Law

The Missoula Police Department received information from a reliable source that Shayden Bradley Westfall had recently received a distributable quantity of drugs at a Missoula hotel room. After corroborating the information, officers obtained a search warrant for the room, where they found methamphetamine, fentanyl, and a firearm. Based on this seizure and Westfall’s statements, officers obtained another warrant for Westfall’s Facebook records stored in California. Westfall was indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fentanyl, possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.The United States District Court for the District of Montana denied Westfall’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from the searches of his hotel room, vehicles, and phones. The court found that each search warrant was valid based on ample probable cause and that the issuing state court was authorized to issue a warrant for subscriber information outside Montana. Westfall entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to 88 months of imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of Westfall’s motion to suppress. The court held that law enforcement’s independent corroboration of information from a reliable source provided a substantial basis for the issuing judge to conclude there was sufficient probable cause for the hotel room search warrant. Additionally, the court held that a Montana district court judge has jurisdiction under the federal Stored Communications Act and Montana law to issue a search warrant for retrieving electronic records stored out-of-state. View "USA V. WESTFALL" on Justia Law

Defendants James Vlha and Travis Schlotterbeck were convicted for conspiring to manufacture firearms for sale without a federal license and for selling a firearm to a felon, respectively. They engaged in manufacturing and selling semiautomatic AR-15 firearms without a license in Bellflower, California, and sold these firearms to undercover agents and a confidential informant believed to be a felon. They were charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) and § 922(d)(1). Defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statutes violated the Second Amendment, but the district court denied their motion. They entered conditional pleas and appealed the decision.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment. The defendants then entered conditional pleas, preserving their right to appeal the district court's decision. They timely appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions. The court held that the Second Amendment does not protect the conduct regulated by 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) because requiring commercial firearm manufacturers to obtain licenses does not meaningfully constrain would-be purchasers from obtaining firearms. The court also held that Schlotterbeck’s facial and as-applied challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) fail because the prohibition on selling firearms to felons does not meaningfully constrain the possessory rights of felons, who do not have possessory rights under the Second Amendment. The court concluded that the text of the Second Amendment does not cover the conduct regulated by these statutes, and thus, the defendants' constitutional challenges fail. The convictions were affirmed. View "USA V. VLHA" on Justia Law

Wardy Alfonso Liberato, a Dominican national previously removed from the United States in 2007, was arrested near the U.S.-Mexico border fence in January 2023. He was part of a group of suspected noncitizens. A jury convicted him of entering and being found in the United States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Liberato appealed, arguing that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was free from official restraint before his apprehension.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied Liberato’s motion for judgment of acquittal and entered a judgment of conviction. Liberato then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The Ninth Circuit reversed Liberato’s conviction, holding that the government’s evidence was insufficient to establish that Liberato was free from official restraint at any point before his apprehension. The court emphasized that for a conviction under § 1326(a), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was free from official restraint after physically entering U.S. territory. The court found that there was no evidence that Liberato’s group was ever anywhere other than immediately next to the border fence, and no testimony about where Liberato was or what he was doing when first observed in the United States. The court concluded that no rational jury could have inferred beyond a reasonable doubt that Liberato was at any point free from official restraint. Consequently, the court reversed the conviction and remanded for entry of a judgment of acquittal. View "USA V. LIBERATO" on Justia Law

In 2002, Tracy Allen Hampton was convicted of killing Charles Findley, Tanya Ramsdell, and Ramsdell’s unborn child. A jury sentenced him to death. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Hampton’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal and denied his petition for state post-conviction relief. Hampton then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the district court denied.Hampton raised four certified claims on appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that each lacked merit. The court found that the State did not violate Brady v. Maryland or Napue v. Illinois in connection with the testimony of a jailhouse informant, George Ridley. Hampton was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s alleged failure to obtain evidence that could have been used to impeach Ridley. The court also held that Hampton’s defense counsel were not constitutionally ineffective at the guilt or sentencing phases of his trial. Additionally, the district court acted within its discretion in denying Hampton’s request for evidentiary development on his Brady, Napue, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court declined to expand the certificate of appealability to include Hampton’s uncertified claims.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Hampton’s federal habeas petition. The court found that the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court also denied Hampton’s motion for reconsideration as moot. View "HAMPTON V. SHINN" on Justia Law