Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of two counts of abusive sexual contact in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2244(a)(5), and two counts of committing a felony offense involving a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2260A. The court concluded that the Guidelines do not contain any instruction that precludes a district court from applying USSG 4B1.5 in calculating the Guidelines sentencing range for a section 2244(a)(5) conviction where a defendant has also been convicted under section 2260A, but rather instructs district courts to determine the Guidelines sentencing range for the section 2244(a)(5) count independently of section 2260A. Therefore, the district court did not procedurally err in calculating the applicable Guidelines range and the court affirmed the judgment. The court disposed of defendant's remaining challenges in an unpublished disposition filed concurrently with this opinion. View "United States v. Joey" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry following deportation. The district court applied a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), concluding that defendant's prior conviction under section 273.6(d) of the California Penal Code for a violation of a protective order involving an act of violence or a credible threat of violence was a categorical crime of violence. The court affirmed defendant's 46 month sentence, holding that a violation of California Penal Code 273.6(d) is a categorical crime of violence for purposes of USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). View "United States v. Acevedo-De La Cruz" on Justia Law

Defendants Shields and Sims appeal their convictions for multiple counts stemming from the capitalization and operation of their real estate development business, which lost millions of investors’ dollars from 2007 to 2009. Defendants challenge their convictions based on several claimed trial errors, including admission of prejudicial evidence, failure to sever the joint trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, inadequate jury instructions, and denial of the right to be present at a critical stage. The court held that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that it must find a duty to disclose in order to convict defendants of wire fraud based on a material omission. However, there was no plain reversible error because the error was not clear and obvious, and is unlikely to affect the outcome of the proceedings. The court rejected defendants' remaining challenges in an unpublished memorandum disposition. View "United States v. Shields" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for multiple counts of conspiracy and armed bank robbery. He received a total sentence of 49.5 years. Defendant was a bank teller who robbed the banks where he worked and had inside information. The court affirmed the conviction and rejected defendant's claim that there was insufficient evidence to establish that each of the banks was FDIC insured and that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's gun ownership. The court concluded that there was no Fourth Amendment violation where defendant voluntarily handed over the cell phone at issue, and the district court utilized Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(b) according to its terms by delaying a ruling on his motion for acquittal until after the close of his case. While the district court had the discretion to impose a lower sentence on the robbery and conspiracy counts, the court concluded that it was not required as a matter of law to reduce defendant's sentence to counter the effects of the mandatory minimums. Therefore, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. The court affirmed the judgment and conviction. View "United States v. Thomas, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendants are alleged members or associates of a gang in Southern California called the Vineland Boys (VBS). Defendants were charged with crimes related to their membership or association with VBS. Manuel Yepiz, Jose Luis Mejia, Francisco Zambrano, Jesus Contreras, Mariano Meza, Sergio Mejia, Gilberto Carrasco, Rafael Yepiz, and Ernesto Mendez timely appealed their convictions and sentences. Defendants argue that the government violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose the full extent of the benefits a cooperating witness received at trial. In light of the disputed facts surrounding defendants’ Brady claim, the court remanded to the district court so that it may engage in the necessary fact-finding to ascertain whether the witness received benefits that were undisclosed to defendants at the time of trial, and if so, whether Brady was violated as to each convicted count. The court also found that the district court abused its discretion when it arbitrarily and without explanation rejected Yepiz’s April 2006 letter seeking to replace his retained counsel with court-appointed counsel. Given the defects in the district court’s handling of Yepiz’s requests, the court vacated Yepiz's conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court addressed the remaining issues in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. View "United States v. Yepiz" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The district court applied a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement, concluding that Defendant’s prior conviction for attempted sexual abuse in the first degree in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. 163.427 constituted a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction and sentencing, holding that a conviction under any one of section 163.427(1)(a)’s three subdivisions necessarily entails a conviction of the elements of the generic federal definition of a “crime of violence.” View "United States v. Rocha-Alvarado" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with five counts of wire fraud stemming from his involvement in a broad scheme to defraud, spanning six years, several states, and numerous alleged victims. Each of the five counts pertains to a particular wire transfer in which a defrauded investor wired money to defendant; the five charged transactions involve a total of three investors; and all involve the scheme as perpetrated in Montana. The government intended to offer evidence of investor victims not specifically named in the indictment, additional uses of the wires and aspects of the scheme carried out in states other than Montana (“uncharged transactions”).The district court granted defendant's motion in limine to exclude the evidence in part. The government appealed and the district court stayed proceedings pending disposition of this interlocutory appeal. The court held that it has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3731. The court also held that the evidence of uncharged transactions is not evidence of “other” crimes or acts under Rule 404(b), because it is evidence of part of the crime charged in the indictment – the overall scheme to defraud. The court explained that, even if the uncharged transactions at issue were not part of the crime charged, they would not be subject to exclusion under Rule 404(b) because they are “part of the same transaction” as the charged transactions. The inextricably intertwined doctrine, therefore, affords a second basis for concluding the evidence should not be treated as “other” crimes or “other” acts evidence under Rule 404(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed the order. View "United States v. Loftis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028A, for knowingly possessing and using the name, birth date, and social security number of another person when he applied to renew a Nevada driver’s license and when he submitted a Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification form to his employer. The court addressed an issue of first impression and held that evidence of a defendant’s repeated submission of false identifying information as part of successful applications to a government agency is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find that the defendant knew that the information belonged to a real person. Therefore, defendant's convictions were based upon sufficient evidence. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to a substantively reasonable sentence of 78-months in prison. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. After the district court made it clear that the base offense level for defendant's crime would be 34, defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, based on his attorney’s erroneous advice that his base offense level would be 14. The district court denied defendant's motion, and sentenced him to 235 months in prison. The court held that common sense, the plain language of the guidelines, and the Sentencing Commission’s commentary, all show that U.S.S.G. 2G1.1(a)(1) only applies to defendants who are subject to a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. 1591(b)(1). In this case, defendant was not subject to 18 U.S.C. 1591(b)(1)’s mandatory minimum and thus the district court erred in applying section 2G1.1(a)(1) to him. Because the error was not harmless, the court reversed the district court's base offense level determination, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Wei Lin" on Justia Law

Defendant, a federal prisoner, seeks bail pending a decision by the district court on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Defendant contends that he should be released on bail because if he prevails on his habeas petition, he will likely receive a reduced sentence of only 71 months, a period of confinement he has already served. In the habeas petition, defendant contends that his sentence is unconstitutional under Johnson v. United States because his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was enhanced under the similar residual clause of the Guidelines’ career-offender provision. The court explained that its precedent holds that a district court’s order denying bail pending resolution of a habeas petition is not a final decision subject to review under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and is not otherwise appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Nor is the order subject to interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) because a bail determination cannot materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Therefore, the court construed this appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s refusal to grant defendant's motion for bail. In this case, the district court did not commit clear error in denying the request for bail where defendant has failed to show either a high probability of success on the merits of his habeas petition or special circumstances that would warrant his release on bail. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "United States v. McCandless" on Justia Law