Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Carlos Estrada, an Indiana resident, was arrested on February 2, 2023, after arranging the sale of 2,579 grams of heroin to an undercover officer in New Jersey. A search of his Indianapolis residence revealed an additional 371 grams of heroin, a digital scale, and a box containing six pounds of lactose, a cutting agent. Estrada committed this offense six months after being released from prison and starting supervised release for a 2019 heroin-distribution conspiracy conviction in the Southern District of New York.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana accepted Estrada's guilty plea to one count of possessing with intent to distribute at least 100 grams of heroin. The court sentenced him to 87 months in prison, at the low end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Estrada appealed, arguing that the district court erred procedurally by not varying downward his criminal history category, which included points from a 2018 misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Estrada contended that the district court did not adequately explain its decision and misapprehended its authority to depart downward. The appellate court found that the district court's explanation was sufficient, considering Estrada's extensive criminal history, including serious juvenile offenses and the fact that he committed the current offense while on supervised release. The court also determined that the district court did not err in its understanding of its authority to vary downward. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence of 87 months in prison. View "United States v Estrada" on Justia Law

Leon Carter was charged by the State of Wisconsin with sexual assault, strangulation, and kidnapping. During his trial, the jury sent a note to the judge with a question, but the bailiff answered it without consulting the judge. The jury found Carter guilty on all counts. After learning of the bailiff’s response, Carter moved for a mistrial, which was denied.On direct appeal, Carter’s appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief, summarizing the record and explaining why potential legal arguments, including those related to the bailiff’s actions, lacked merit. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed the convictions, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied certiorari.Carter then sought federal habeas relief, asserting two violations: that the state appellate court denied him a meaningful appeal under Anders v. California, and that the state trial judge erred by not holding a hearing to investigate jury intrusion, contrary to Remmer v. United States. The district court rejected the Anders claim and did not consider the Remmer claim. Carter appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.The Seventh Circuit concluded that Carter’s Anders claim failed, as the Wisconsin Court of Appeals had adequately reviewed the record and briefs, ensuring his appeal was resolved on its merits. The court also found that Carter’s Remmer claim could not overcome the high hurdle set by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), as the bailiff’s communication with the jury did not rise to the level of presumptive prejudice established in Remmer. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Carter v. Tegels" on Justia Law

Nathaniel Jacobs was found guilty by a jury of several drug and gun possession offenses, as well as witness tampering. The case began when Jacobs appeared at a hospital with a gunshot wound and admitted to police that he had accidentally shot himself with a firearm he was not legally allowed to possess. A search of his home revealed firearms, ammunition, and drug-related evidence, including methamphetamine and paraphernalia. Jacobs was indicted on multiple counts, including illegal possession of firearms, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and witness tampering.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana handled the initial proceedings. During pretrial, the court granted a government motion to exclude evidence of Jacobs’s girlfriend’s pending criminal charges, which Jacobs wanted to use to suggest her potential bias. The jury trial proceeded, and Jacobs was convicted on all counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Jacobs raised two issues on appeal: a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights due to the district court's restriction on cross-examining his ex-girlfriend about her potential bias, and a Fourth Amendment challenge regarding the admission of drug evidence found in his home. The appellate court found that any potential Sixth Amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence against Jacobs. Additionally, the court determined that Jacobs had not shown good cause for failing to file a suppression motion regarding the drug evidence and that the search of the tobacco cans was within the scope of the warrant.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding Jacobs’s convictions. View "United States v. Jacobs" on Justia Law

Efrain Leonides-Seguria, a Mexican citizen without legal status in the United States, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on June 15, 2021, for illegal reentry. Six days later, ICE referred him for criminal prosecution. On June 23, federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint, and a magistrate judge issued an arrest warrant. Leonides-Seguria remained in immigration custody until June 28, when he was arrested on the criminal complaint. He later waived prosecution by indictment, consenting to the filing of a criminal information on July 27.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Leonides-Seguria’s motions to dismiss the federal charge, arguing that the government violated the Speedy Trial Act and that 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is unconstitutional. He pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal these denials. The district court sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Leonides-Seguria argued that the Speedy Trial Act was violated because the criminal information was filed more than 30 days after his apprehension. He urged the court to recognize a "ruse exception," where civil detention by immigration authorities is used to delay criminal prosecution. The Seventh Circuit declined to resolve the legal question of the ruse exception, finding that the facts did not support its application. The court found no evidence of collusion between ICE and federal prosecutors to circumvent the Speedy Trial Act. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and upheld the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, consistent with precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v Leonides-Seguria" on Justia Law

Mark Sorensen, owner of SyMed Inc., a Medicare-registered distributor of durable medical equipment, was involved in a business arrangement with PakMed LLC, Byte Success Marketing, and Dynamic Medical Management. They advertised orthopedic braces, obtained signed prescriptions from patients' doctors, distributed the braces, and collected Medicare reimbursements. Byte and KPN, another marketing firm, advertised the braces, and interested patients provided their information, which was forwarded to call centers. Sales agents then contacted patients, generated prescription forms, and faxed them to physicians for approval. Physicians retained discretion to sign and return the forms, with many choosing not to.A federal grand jury indicted Sorensen on four counts: one count of conspiracy and three counts of offering and paying kickbacks for Medicare referrals. The jury found Sorensen guilty on all counts. Sorensen moved for acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence and lack of awareness of the scheme's illegality. The district court denied his motions, finding the evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude Sorensen knew the fee structure and purchase of doctors' orders were illegal. Sorensen was sentenced to 42 months in prison but was released on bond pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's judgment due to insufficient evidence. The court found that Sorensen's payments to PakMed, KPN, and Byte were for advertising, manufacturing, and shipping services, not for patient referrals. The court emphasized that the Anti-Kickback Statute targets payments to individuals with influence over healthcare decisions, which was not the case here. The court concluded that Sorensen's actions did not violate the statute, as there was no evidence of improper influence over physicians' independent medical judgment. View "USA v Sorensen" on Justia Law

Michael Clark was convicted by a federal jury of possessing a controlled substance based on evidence obtained from a search of his hotel room. Clark challenged the search warrant, arguing that the police investigator, Todd Maas, omitted damaging credibility information about the confidential informant who tipped off the police. The case was previously remanded for a Franks hearing to evaluate Maas's explanation for the omission.The district court, after the Franks hearing, found Maas to be a credible witness who did not purposely or recklessly omit the information. The magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Clark's motion to suppress was adopted, and the judgment of conviction was reinstated. Clark appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court's factual findings for clear error. Clark contended that the district court erred in finding that Maas did not act with deliberate or reckless disregard for the truth. However, the appellate court found ample support in the record for the district court's conclusion that Maas was credible and non-deceptive. The court noted that Maas's omission was due to department policy at the time, which has since changed. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no basis to set aside the credibility determination.The Seventh Circuit also addressed the issue of missing reply briefs, emphasizing their importance in the appellate process. The court noted that Clark's failure to file a reply brief left significant points unaddressed, which could negatively impact the perception of the appeal's merit. Ultimately, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "USA v Clark" on Justia Law

Ronald Norweathers was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 250 months’ imprisonment for possessing and distributing child pornography. He claimed that he was acting under the direction of an FBI agent, Joseph Bonsuk, who misled him into collecting and forwarding child pornography as part of a nonexistent undercover operation. The jury rejected his defense, and his post-trial motions and direct appeal were unsuccessful. Norweathers then moved to vacate his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request certain jury instructions and for not calling a computer forensics expert as a witness. The district court denied his motion without a hearing.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Norweathers’s § 2255 motion, finding that his claims lacked merit. The court concluded that the failure to request an apparent authority or entrapment by estoppel jury instruction was immaterial because Norweathers’s testimony did not establish reasonable reliance on a government agent’s authority. The court also dismissed his claim regarding the computer forensics expert, deeming it insufficiently cogent to suggest constitutional error.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Norweathers’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims were without merit. It found that his testimony did not support a reasonable reliance on Bonsuk’s authority, making the jury instructions irrelevant. Additionally, the court determined that the decision not to call the computer forensics expert was a strategic choice within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. The court concluded that Norweathers failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of a different result had the expert testified, and thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. View "Norweathers v USA" on Justia Law

Jaron Jackson pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a minor and transportation of child pornography. He was sentenced to 240 months in prison. Jackson appealed, arguing that the district court should have suppressed evidence found on his cell phone, claiming the police took too long (40 days) to seek a search warrant after his arrest. Jackson conceded that the warrant was supported by probable cause.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Jackson's motion to suppress, concluding that the delay did not allow the police to obtain any evidence they would not have received had they sought a warrant immediately. The district judge also found the motion untimely, as it was filed ten months past the deadline for pretrial motions. The court held a hearing to consider whether "good cause" justified the delay and concluded it did not.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the 40-day delay in seeking the warrant did not make the search unreasonable, as the phone had been in official custody since Jackson's arrest, and there was no risk of evidence being altered or destroyed. The court also noted that Jackson did not attempt to regain possession of the phone or express concern about the delay. Therefore, the district court properly denied the motion to suppress the evidence recovered from the phone. View "USA v Jackson" on Justia Law

John Johnson pleaded guilty in 2020 to distributing large volumes of cocaine on two occasions in 2014 while he was on supervised release for a 2001 crack cocaine conviction. His guilty plea led to the revocation of his supervised release. The district court held a combined sentencing hearing, imposing a 180-month imprisonment and six years of supervised release for each count of the new offenses, to be served concurrently. Additionally, the court imposed a 24-month imprisonment for the supervised release violation, also to be served concurrently with the 180-month sentence.Johnson filed a motion to reduce the 24-month sentence under the First Step Act, which the district court denied, believing he was not eligible for a reduction. Johnson appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that Johnson's revocation sentence is eligible for a reduction under the First Step Act because the revocation penalties relate to the original offense, which is a covered offense under the Act. However, the court found that the district court's error in denying the reduction was harmless because the 24-month sentence runs concurrently with the 180-month sentence for the new offenses. Therefore, even if the 24-month sentence were reduced, it would not affect the total length of Johnson's imprisonment. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Quintin Ferguson was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment for violating 18 U.S.C. §844(i), which involves maliciously damaging or destroying property by fire or explosives. The district court classified him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1(a), which requires the current conviction and at least two prior convictions for felony drug offenses or crimes of violence. Ferguson contested that a violation of §844(i) should not be considered "arson" under §4B1.2(a)(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, initially reviewed the case. The district court concluded that §844(i) is a "crime of violence" and treated Ferguson as a career offender, leading to his 240-month sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a conviction under §844(i) qualifies as "arson" for the purposes of the career-offender guideline. The court reasoned that the definition of "generic arson" includes the intentional or malicious burning of any property, not limited to burning one's own property to collect insurance. The court affirmed the district court's classification of Ferguson as a career offender and upheld the 240-month sentence. View "United States v Ferguson" on Justia Law