Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

California Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc., an Ohio rehabilitation center, and its owner, Sebastian Rucci, became the subjects of a federal criminal investigation in 2021. Pursuant to ex parte warrants issued by a magistrate judge, the FBI seized $603,902.89 from their accounts. Shortly thereafter, state agencies revoked the facility’s provider certification and terminated its Medicaid agreement. The plaintiffs filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, seeking the return of the seized funds and disclosure of the affidavits used to obtain the warrants, alleging constitutional defects and asserting a right to inspect the affidavits under the Fourth Amendment.The Government moved to stay the civil action, indicating its intent to pursue a civil forfeiture proceeding regarding the seized funds. After initiating the forfeiture case, the Government moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ civil action, arguing that the statutory forfeiture process provided the appropriate remedy. The district court stayed the civil action pending resolution of the forfeiture case. In September 2024, the Government voluntarily dismissed the forfeiture proceeding and returned the funds with interest to the plaintiffs. The district court then ordered the plaintiffs to show cause why the civil action should not be dismissed as moot. Despite the plaintiffs’ argument that their claim for disclosure of the warrant affidavits remained unresolved, the district court dismissed the entire action as moot, reasoning that the plaintiffs had received the relief sought.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that, while the claim for return of funds was moot, the claim for disclosure of the warrant affidavits was not. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal of the affidavit disclosure claim and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the existence of a live controversy over the disclosure request precluded dismissal for mootness. View "California Palms v. United States" on Justia Law

After pleading guilty to federal drug-distribution conspiracy charges in 2012, the defendant was sentenced to ten years in prison followed by eight years of supervised release. He began his supervised release in 2019. In 2022, while still under supervision, he shot and killed a man outside a convenience store, an act captured on security video. He subsequently pled guilty to murder in state court. This new criminal conduct constituted a violation of the conditions of his federal supervised release.Following the murder conviction, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan revoked the defendant’s supervised release. At the revocation hearing, the court considered the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, which recommended a range of 51 to 63 months, but imposed the statutory maximum of 60 months’ imprisonment. The court ordered this sentence to run consecutively to the defendant’s state sentence. The defendant objected to both the length of the federal sentence and the decision to run it consecutively, but did not object to the court’s consideration of the seriousness of the supervised-release violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Applying plain-error review to the procedural challenge, the court held that the district court did not treat the seriousness of the supervised-release violation as a mandatory factor, but permissibly considered it as a breach of trust. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, noting that the district court considered multiple relevant factors and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Patterson" on Justia Law

The defendant, a long-time drug trafficker, was convicted for conspiring to distribute oxycodone in rural Appalachian communities. His criminal history included two prior drug distribution convictions, and he was previously sentenced as a career offender, resulting in a lengthy prison term, supervised release, and a fine. After a series of unsuccessful post-trial motions and appeals, a change in Sixth Circuit law regarding the definition of a “career offender” under the Sentencing Guidelines made him eligible for resentencing. At resentencing, the defendant presented evidence of rehabilitation and mitigating personal history, and requested a sentence within the recalculated, lower Guidelines range.Previously, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky had sentenced the defendant above the Guidelines range, citing his recidivism and lack of remorse. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed both the conviction and sentence. However, after the Sixth Circuit’s en banc decision in United States v. Havis, which narrowed the definition of a “controlled substance offense,” the defendant successfully moved for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, leading to resentencing without the career offender enhancement. At resentencing, the district court imposed a sentence at the top of the new Guidelines range, reduced the term of supervised release, and reimposed the fine.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not err in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, in its consideration of sentencing disparities, or in its treatment of mitigating evidence. The appellate court also found no plain error in the imposition of supervised release conditions. The sentence was affirmed, but the case was remanded to the district court for consideration of a retroactive sentencing amendment (Amendment 821). The request for reassignment to a different judge was denied. View "United States v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Eskender Getachew, a medical doctor in Columbus, Ohio, operated a clinic treating patients with opioid addiction. The government alleged that Dr. Getachew unlawfully prescribed controlled substances, particularly Subutex, at rates far exceeding medical norms, often without verifying patients’ claimed allergies to naloxone. Evidence at trial included testimony from an undercover officer, clinic staff, and an expert who identified repeated deviations from accepted medical practice, such as prescribing drugs without documented need and ignoring signs of drug diversion. The jury found Dr. Getachew guilty on eleven counts of unlawful distribution of controlled substances and not guilty on four counts.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio presided over the trial. After conviction, Dr. Getachew was sentenced to concurrent six-month terms and three years of supervised release. He moved for a new trial, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and requested an evidentiary hearing, which the district court denied. Dr. Getachew appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the deliberate-ignorance jury instruction, the content of that instruction, his absence at the return of the verdict, and the denial of an evidentiary hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Dr. Getachew knowingly issued unauthorized prescriptions. It found no plain error in the deliberate-ignorance instruction or its content. The court determined that Dr. Getachew’s absence at the verdict’s return did not affect his substantial rights and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on the new trial motion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Getachew" on Justia Law

Benjamin Carpenter was accused of providing translation and related services to ISIS, a designated foreign terrorist organization. He founded Ahlud-Tawhid Publications (ATP), which translated and published ISIS propaganda in multiple languages. Carpenter personally translated ISIS materials into English, wrote original content, and managed an ATP group on Telegram, where he coordinated translation projects. An undercover FBI agent, posing as an ISIS affiliate, joined the group and interacted with Carpenter, who recommended and facilitated the translation of ISIS propaganda videos at the agent’s request. Carpenter was arrested before completing a second translation assignment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee charged Carpenter with attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. After a five-day trial, a jury convicted him, and the district court sentenced him to 240 months in prison. Carpenter appealed, challenging the statute’s application to his conduct, evidentiary rulings, a protective order allowing an FBI agent to use a pseudonym, jury instructions, and the reasonableness of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Carpenter’s arguments and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that translation services constitute “material support” as a “service” under the statute, consistent with Supreme Court precedent. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s evidentiary rulings, including the admission of evidence related to Carpenter’s involvement with ATP and ISIS, the use of a pseudonym for the FBI agent, and the denial of Carpenter’s proposed jury instructions. The court also upheld the application of the terrorism sentencing enhancement and found the sentence both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "United States v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Over several months, the defendant participated in four carjackings targeting Lyft drivers in Detroit. In each incident, two assailants, including the defendant, brandished firearms, demanded money and property, and forced the victims to remove their clothing before fleeing in the stolen vehicles. One victim was pistol-whipped and sustained bodily injury. Extensive evidence, including phone records, cell site data, and identification by a victim, linked the defendant to each carjacking. A search of his residence uncovered multiple firearms and stolen vehicles. The defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of carjacking, aiding and abetting, admitting involvement but attempting to minimize his role in some attacks.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan prepared a presentence report recommending several offense level enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines, including increases for brandishing and using firearms and for causing bodily injury. The defendant objected, arguing for a mitigating role reduction based on his claimed minor participation. The district court rejected his arguments, found by a preponderance of the evidence that he was a principal in each carjacking, and applied all recommended enhancements. The court imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 180 months, citing the severity and humiliating nature of the crimes, the defendant’s prior criminal history, and his lack of respect for the law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings or in applying the offense level enhancements, nor did it plainly err in denying a mitigating role reduction or in considering the defendant’s age and rehabilitation potential. The appellate court found the upward variance substantively reasonable, given the egregious nature of the offenses and the impact on the victims. The sentence was affirmed. View "United States v. Haile" on Justia Law

The defendant was apprehended after two separate incidents in which he was found in possession of firearms and drugs. In the first incident, after a car accident, he attempted to dissuade the other driver from calling the police due to the presence of contraband in his vehicle, then fled but was quickly caught. In the second incident, a traffic stop led to the discovery of additional firearms, ammunition, and drugs. He was charged with two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and pleaded guilty.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky calculated his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines as twenty-two, based in part on a prior Kentucky conviction for second-degree manslaughter, which the court classified as a “crime of violence.” The defendant did not object to this calculation at sentencing and was sentenced to 145 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether Kentucky’s second-degree manslaughter qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines, applying plain error review because the issue was not raised below. The court held that the Kentucky statute’s “wantonness” mens rea is functionally equivalent to “recklessness” as defined in Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021), and does not meet the standard for a “crime of violence,” which requires purposeful or knowing conduct. The court found that the district court’s reliance on this conviction to enhance the sentence was plain error, affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and undermined the fairness of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Tooley" on Justia Law

Andrew Maurice Randolph was convicted in Michigan state court of second-degree murder and weapons offenses after a shooting at his former girlfriend’s home resulted in the death of her mother. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on ammunition found in Randolph’s bags at his father’s house and a firearm discovered at his brother’s residence, which was identified as the murder weapon. Randolph’s trial counsel did not move to suppress this evidence, and Randolph argued that this failure, among other alleged deficiencies, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.Following his conviction, Randolph appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which rejected his ineffective assistance claim without explanation. The Supreme Court of Michigan reversed in part for unrelated reasons and remanded. On remand, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding Randolph did not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched belongings. The Supreme Court of Michigan denied leave to appeal. Randolph then sought federal habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, raising four ineffective assistance claims. The district court denied the petition, concluding that the suppression motion would have failed and that counsel’s other actions were either strategically reasonable or not prejudicial. The district court also denied a certificate of appealability (COA).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed only the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence obtained from the search of Randolph’s belongings, as this was the sole issue for which a COA was granted. The Sixth Circuit held that the state court’s factual findings and legal conclusions were reasonable under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. The court also denied Randolph’s request to expand the COA, holding that a merits panel lacks authority to do so. View "Randolph v. Macauley" on Justia Law

Two individuals were involved in a drug-trafficking operation distributing fentanyl and methamphetamine in the Lexington, Kentucky area. One supplied the drugs, which were pressed to resemble oxycodone pills, to the other, who then sold them to others. Both were apprehended after law enforcement used confidential informants and controlled buys. The supplier pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses, while the other pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute drugs.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sentenced the supplier to 228 months in prison and the other individual to 74 months, also imposing supervised release conditions. Both defendants challenged the procedural reasonableness of their sentences, specifically contesting the application of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(13) for knowingly misrepresenting or marketing fentanyl as another substance. The second defendant also argued ineffective assistance of counsel, improper denial of a downward departure for reduced mental capacity, and an improper special condition of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court properly applied the sentencing enhancement: the supplier knowingly misrepresented fentanyl as oxycodone, and the other knowingly marketed fentanyl as another substance, given the pills’ appearance and his knowledge of their contents. The court found no error in the district court’s reliance on a cooperating witness’s statement or in its findings regarding the defendants’ knowledge. The appellate court declined to address the ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal due to an insufficient record, found the denial of a downward departure unreviewable, and upheld the special condition of supervised release. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgments. View "United States v. Matthews" on Justia Law

Officers investigating a drug trafficking ring observed Devin Long engaging in several suspected drug transactions, including controlled buys involving other individuals. Surveillance revealed Long’s repeated visits to known stash houses and his own registered residence, where officers witnessed activity consistent with drug dealing. Based on these observations and information from a confidential source, officers obtained a warrant to search Long’s home. The search uncovered illegal drugs, firearms, and related paraphernalia, leading to Long’s indictment on federal drug and firearm charges.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio reviewed Long’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from his home, which argued that the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to establish a sufficient nexus between his alleged criminal activity and the residence. The district court denied the motion, finding that the affidavit provided probable cause for the search. Long subsequently pleaded guilty to four charges but preserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered whether the search warrant for Long’s home was supported by probable cause. Applying a deferential standard to the issuing magistrate judge’s determination, the Sixth Circuit held that the affidavit established both that Long’s home was his residence and that he was engaged in ongoing drug trafficking. The court further found that even a single drug transaction observed outside Long’s home provided an independent basis for probable cause. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Long’s motion to suppress, concluding that the warrant was properly issued under the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Long" on Justia Law