Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to all counts related to his sexual abuse of his stepdaughter over the course of 5 years. Determining that it has appellate jurisdiction, the court held that a judgment of conviction is final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1291 whenever it imposes a sentence of incarceration, even if post‐conviction proceedings to set a restitution amount remain pending. The court also concluded that the district court’s failure to advise defendant that restitution would be imposed did not constitute plain error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Tulsiram" on Justia Law

Petitioner moved for remand of his third 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, arguing that the motion is not successive. The court concluded that the section 2255 motion was properly transferred to this court as successive because it was filed after the adjudication of his first section 2255 motion became final. Accordingly, the court denied petitioner's motion for remand. View "Fuller v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute or possess with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and seven counts of transaction structuring for the purpose of evading currency reporting requirements. The court rejected defendant's argument that his conviction for the cocaine conspiracy must be vacated because it constituted a constructive amendment of the indictment, which charged a conspiracy involving a larger amount - five kilograms or more - of cocaine. In this case, the jury was properly charged on the lesser included offense that was the basis for his conviction on count one, and defendant’s conviction on that count is affirmed. The court concluded, however, that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant’s transactions constitute “a pattern of structured transactions” intended to evade currency reporting requirements. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction as to the conspiracy to distribute cocaine, reversed the judgment of conviction as to the transaction structuring counts, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree manslaughter and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of fifteen years, to be followed by five years of supervised release, on the manslaughter and weapons convictions. The district court subsequently issued a certificate of appealability as to: (1) whether a State court decision denying an ineffective assistance of counsel claim can be contrary to, or an unreasonable application of the prejudice requirement in Strickland v. Washington, where petitioner received concurrent sentences, only one of which is the subject of the ineffective assistance claim; and (2) whether, when a State court has held that a claim is procedurally barred, and that the bar will not be excused by ineffective assistance of counsel, a federal habeas court should apply the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), deference in considering whether that ineffective assistance of counsel claim can serve as cause and prejudice for excusing the procedural default. The court concluded that the state court’s rejection of petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Even assuming that petitioner can establish cause to excuse procedural default of his fair-trial and double-jeopardy claims, the underlying claims also fail under the extremely deferential AEDPA standard that applies to them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief. View "Tavarez v. Larkin" on Justia Law

Count 21 of the indictment charged Defendants Martinez and Ortega with aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c), using or carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence or possessing a firearm in furtherance of that crime, in connection with a murder. The court held that, in the wake of Rosemond v. United States, general instructions on aiding and abetting liability, such as the instructions at issue here, are insufficient and plainly erroneous in the context of a section 924(c) charge. The court also held that this error affected Ortega’s, but not Martinez’s, substantial rights, and therefore vacated Ortega’s conviction on Count 21. View "United States v. Prado" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for illegally reentering the United States. The court agreed with defendant that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court erred in holding that his prior Connecticut conviction for attempted second‐degree assault was a conviction for an “aggravated felony” under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) and therefore triggered an eight‐level increase in his guideline offense level. As there is no evidence in the record of conviction that would enable the court to determine which section of the divisible Connecticut statute defendant pled guilty to, it cannot be determined, applying the categorical or modified categorical approach, that defendant’s Connecticut conviction was an aggravated felony. Accordingly, the court remanded for vacatur of the judgment and resentencing. View "United States v. Moreno" on Justia Law

Defendant, a lawyer and real estate broker, appealed the district court's imposition of criminal forfeiture in the amount of $1,273,285.50, arguing that the district court erred when it declined to consider defendant’s age, health, and financial condition when it issued the forfeiture order. Defendant was convicted of charges related to his participation in a kickback scheme involving the construction of new Dick Sporting Goods stores. The court held that the court reviewing a criminal forfeiture under the Excessive Fines Clause may consider - as part of the proportionality determination required by United States v. Bajakajian - whether the forfeiture would deprive the defendant of his future ability to earn a living. However, the court held that courts should not consider a defendant’s personal circumstances as a distinct factor. In this case, the court concluded that the challenged forfeiture is constitutional because it is not “grossly disproportional” to the gravity of defendant’s offenses. View "United States v. Viloski" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of two counts of intentional murder while engaged in a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 848(e)(1)(A). On appeal, defendant raised three challenges related to section 848(e)(1)(A)’s drug trafficking element: (1) the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111–220, 124 Stat. 2372, retroactively invalidates a pre‐Act verdict under section 848(e)(1)(A) predicated upon a pre‐Act drug trafficking quantity under section 841(b)(1)(A), where the defendant is sentenced post‐Act; (2) he could not properly be indicted for violating section 848(e)(1)(A) unless he had previously been convicted of the predicate drug trafficking offense; and (3) the predicate drug trafficking offense’s statute of limitations governs a section 848(e)(1)(A) murder prosecution. Defendant also claimed Fourth Amendment violations arising from his arrest. After considering all of defendant's arguments on appeal, the court found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, but remanded for the sole purpose of correcting a clerical error. View "United States v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for drug and firearm-related charges, arguing that the district court erred by excluding from calculation, for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act (STA), 18 U.S.C. 3161, forty days of delay resulting from the government’s filing of two motions to set a trial date. Defendant also argued, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred by excluding periods of delay resulting from the joinder of his case with that of his codefendant. The court held that defendant waived this latter claim by failing to raise it in his motion to dismiss on STA grounds before the district court. The court also concluded that, because defendant failed to establish an STA violation even if the district court erred in excluding the periods of delay resulting from the government’s motions to set a trial date, the court need not decide that question. View "United States v. Love" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing cocaine base with the intent to distribute and for possessing ammunition as a felon. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant and therefore rejected defendant's challenges to his conviction and vacated the district court's judgment insofar as it set aside the jury’s verdict as to a portion of that cocaine. The court also concluded that the district court erred in requiring the government to prove that defendant both used and maintained the premises in order to be convicted of using or maintaining a place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(1). Because the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that defendant used the premises for a drug‐related purpose, the court also vacated the district court’s judgment of acquittal on that charge. View "United States v. Facen" on Justia Law