Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to engage in a racketeering enterprise in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and (d); using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c); and operating an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1955. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of certain predicate racketeering acts; even assuming there was error, defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court's use of the wrong version of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings; and the district court properly denied defendant's motion for a new trial where the newly discovered evidence at issue was essentially more of the same, and therefore cumulative or impeachment evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Vernace" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 46-month sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court affirmed the sentence but wrote to suggest to the Sentencing Commission and the Judicial Conference of the Uniteds States that the Statement of Reasons form included within the statutorily‐required form for the entry of criminal judgments ‐‐ Form AO 245B ‐‐ be amended to bring it into conformity with 18 U.S.C. 3553(c) and Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, a check‐a‐box section of the form, which was checked by the district court in this case, invites sentencing judges to impose a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range simply because the judge finds no reason to depart. View "United States v. Pruitt" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 20 year sentence after pleading guilty to three firearms violations. The court held that there was no error in the district court’s decision not to expressly discuss and reject defendant’s arguments for a downward departure and a variance; the district court’s application of the other‐felony‐offense enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) constituted impermissible double‐counting clearly prohibited by the Guidelines, and that its rulings concerning the obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 and the acceptance‐of‐responsibility adjustment under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1 were not supported by the necessary factual findings; and in light of these holdings, the court did not reach defendant’s argument that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Young" on Justia Law

Defendant, who conditionally plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence recovered and statements made following his warrantless arrest while he was standing inside the threshold of his home. The district court concluded that although defendant was inside the threshold of his home when he was arrested, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred because the police were able to effect the arrest without crossing the threshold themselves. The court concluded that, because it is uncontested that defendant remained inside his home, and was in his home when the officers placed him under arrest, his warrantless arrest in the absence of exigent circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court vacated, reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law