Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Detectives from the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department observed Edwin Santiago arriving at a car dealership in a vehicle emitting a strong odor of marijuana. Santiago exited the car, and the detectives noticed a pistol on his waistband. Suspecting Santiago of possessing a firearm while under the influence of marijuana, the detectives detained him. During the detention, they discovered Santiago was a felon, leading to his arrest and subsequent indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee held a suppression hearing where the detectives and a witness testified about the marijuana odor. The court found the detectives' testimony credible and ruled that the odor provided reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the arrest. Consequently, the court denied Santiago's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the arrest. Santiago, representing himself at trial, was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 56 months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Santiago's appeal, which challenged the denial of his motion to suppress and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the smell of marijuana provided reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the arrest. The court also found Santiago's within-Guidelines sentence to be substantively reasonable, considering his criminal history and the circumstances of the offense. Santiago's additional pro se claims were not considered, as he was represented by counsel on appeal. View "United States v. Santiago" on Justia Law

Tracey Shaw was indicted in January 2023 for knowingly possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Shaw pleaded guilty and, as part of his plea agreement, waived his right to appeal any sentence within the applicable guideline range. At the sentencing hearing, the district court determined Shaw’s guideline range to be 87 to 108 months and sentenced him to 92 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The court did not make a recommendation about substance-abuse treatment during incarceration but left it to the Bureau of Prisons. For supervised release, the court stated that Shaw might be required to participate in substance-abuse treatment if directed by the probation office.The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee issued a written judgment stating that Shaw must participate in substance-abuse testing and treatment as directed by the probation officer. Shaw appealed, arguing that the written judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement, which he interpreted as delegating the decision to the probation office.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Shaw’s appeal was not barred by his plea agreement’s appeal waiver because he was challenging the written judgment, not the sentence itself. The court found that the oral sentence was ambiguous regarding the substance-abuse treatment condition. The written judgment clarified this ambiguity by specifying that Shaw must participate in substance-abuse treatment as directed by the probation officer. The court concluded that this language met constitutional requirements by mandating treatment while allowing the probation officer to handle the details. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s written judgment. View "United States v. Shaw" on Justia Law

Leonel Hinojosa was originally sentenced to 240 months in prison for shooting a man during a robbery. The sentence was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit because it was unclear whether the district court properly used one of Hinojosa’s prior convictions to calculate his guidelines range. The court could only rely on this prior conviction if it resulted in Hinojosa’s incarceration during any time in the 15 years before he committed his current offenses.On remand, the government presented additional evidence about Hinojosa’s criminal history. The district court found that the prior conviction met the guideline’s standards for inclusion in the criminal history score. This resulted in a guidelines range of 120 to 150 months for his robbery and felon-in-possession offenses, plus a consecutive 120-month minimum sentence for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. The district court reimposed the same 240-month sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the “but for” causal connection between the prior conviction and the extra incarceration satisfied the guideline’s “resulted in” language. The court also found that the district court reasonably sentenced Hinojosa to 240 months due to his history of violence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the sentence, rejecting Hinojosa’s procedural and substantive challenges. The court concluded that the district court properly calculated the guidelines range and reasonably balanced the sentencing factors, including the seriousness of the offense and Hinojosa’s history of violent behavior. View "United States v. Hinojosa" on Justia Law

In this case, Kelli Prather was convicted by a jury of bank fraud, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and making a false statement on a loan application. The charges stemmed from her fraudulent applications for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) funds under the CARES Act, which were intended to provide financial relief during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prather submitted multiple fraudulent loan applications for non-operational businesses and used the identity of her mentally disabled nephew, D.P., to apply for additional loans.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio sentenced Prather to 84 months in prison. Prather appealed her conviction and sentence, arguing insufficient evidence for her aggravated identity theft conviction, improper admission of certain testimonies, and errors in the jury instructions and sentencing enhancements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that there was ample evidence to support Prather's aggravated identity theft conviction, including testimony that D.P. did not understand the loan application process and that Prather used his identity without lawful authority. The court also determined that the testimonies of Special Agent Reier and Prather's ex-fiancé, Darrell Willis, did not constitute plain error and were cumulative of other evidence presented at trial.Regarding the jury instructions, the court held that the district court correctly informed the jury that Prather did not need to know the interstate nature of her acts to be convicted of wire fraud. Finally, the court upheld the district court's application of the vulnerable victim enhancement, finding that D.P. was indeed a victim of Prather's fraudulent scheme.The Sixth Circuit affirmed Prather's conviction and sentence, concluding that there were no reversible errors in the district court's proceedings. View "United States v. Prather" on Justia Law

Jermaine Kimbrough pleaded guilty in 2022 to four criminal offenses related to carjacking and firearms. At sentencing, the district court determined that Kimbrough had three prior violent felonies committed on different occasions, making him subject to an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). This enhancement increased his statutory penalty range for being a felon in possession of a firearm from a maximum of 10 years to a minimum of 15 years.The district court, following then-controlling Sixth Circuit precedent, decided that Kimbrough's two 2016 aggravated burglary offenses occurred on different occasions, thus applying the ACCA enhancement. Kimbrough objected, arguing that a jury should make this determination. The district court overruled his objection and sentenced him to 148 months for Counts One, Two, and Four, to be served concurrently, and 84 months for Count Three, to be served consecutively.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v. United States established that it is an error for a judge, rather than a jury, to determine whether prior offenses occurred on different occasions for ACCA purposes. The Sixth Circuit found that this error was not harmless in Kimbrough's case. The court noted that a reasonable jury could find that Kimbrough's two 2016 burglaries were part of a single criminal event, given their close proximity and similar nature.The Sixth Circuit vacated Kimbrough's sentence on Counts One, Two, and Four and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court also noted that the sentence for Count One exceeded the statutory maximum and must be corrected on remand. Additionally, the court left Kimbrough's Double Jeopardy argument for the district court to address if the government seeks an ACCA-enhanced sentence on remand. View "United States v. Kimbrough" on Justia Law

Federal and local law enforcement officers in Toledo, Ohio, uncovered a large-scale drug distribution scheme involving cocaine, cocaine base, and fentanyl. Christopher Simpson, Marquise Figures, and Antuan Wynn were charged with various federal crimes related to this scheme. They were tried together, and the jury found them guilty on all charges except one against Wynn.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio sentenced Simpson to 300 months, Wynn to 224 months, and Figures to 70 months. All three defendants appealed their convictions and sentences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. Simpson challenged the seizure and search of a vehicle, arguing Fourth Amendment violations, but the court found the actions lawful. Simpson also contested his sentence, particularly the drug quantity calculation and an obstruction of justice enhancement, but the court upheld the district court's findings.Figures argued that evidence from a traffic stop was improperly admitted and that there was insufficient evidence for his conspiracy conviction. The court found the evidence intrinsic to the charged conspiracy and sufficient to support the conviction. Figures also challenged his sentence, but the court found no error in the drug quantity calculation or the denial of a minor participant reduction.Wynn contended there was a variance between the indictment and the trial evidence, but the court found no prejudicial variance. He also challenged a jury instruction and the admission of pre-conspiracy evidence, but the court found no error. Wynn's sentence challenges, including the drug quantity calculation and enhancements for firearm possession and maintaining a drug premises, were also rejected.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgments of the district court for all three defendants. View "United States v. Simpson" on Justia Law

Freddie Knipp, Jr. was convicted of two counts of distributing methamphetamine and one count of knowingly selling a firearm to a felon. The convictions stemmed from controlled drug buys and a firearm purchase facilitated by law enforcement, with Knipp selling methamphetamine to Larry Eldridge and purchasing a firearm for him, knowing Eldridge was a felon. Eldridge cooperated with law enforcement, leading to Knipp's arrest and subsequent trial.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied Knipp's motion to dismiss the firearm charge, which he argued violated the Second Amendment. Knipp was found guilty on all counts by a jury and sentenced to 138 months in prison for the drug charges and 120 months for the firearm charge, to be served concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. Knipp challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1), which prohibits selling firearms to felons, arguing it violated the Second Amendment. The court applied the two-step framework from N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen and found that while the Second Amendment covers the right to acquire firearms, historical precedent supports disarming dangerous individuals, including felons. Thus, the court upheld the statute's constitutionality.Knipp also contested the admission of Eldridge's testimony about prior drug transactions, arguing it was impermissible propensity evidence. The court found any potential error in admitting this evidence to be harmless, given the substantial other evidence of Knipp's guilt.Finally, Knipp argued that the district court erred in calculating his sentence by including drug quantities from prior transactions based on Eldridge's testimony. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court's credibility determination and upheld the sentence.The Sixth Circuit affirmed Knipp's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Knipp" on Justia Law

Malgum Whiteside, Jr. was charged with being a felon in possession of firearms after police found the weapons during a search of his residence. The search was conducted while officers were looking for evidence related to stalking charges against Whiteside. Whiteside moved to suppress the firearms, arguing that the search warrant was invalid and no warrant exception applied. The district court denied the motion, and Whiteside pleaded guilty while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Whiteside's motion to suppress, finding that the warrant was valid despite the judge not signing the warrant itself, only the affidavit. The court also found that there was a sufficient nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence sought. Additionally, the court ruled that even if the warrant was invalid, the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement would apply, and the firearms were in plain view.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the warrant was validly issued despite the lack of a signature on the warrant itself, as there was clear and contemporaneous evidence that the judge made the necessary probable cause determination. The court also found that the warrant affidavit established a sufficient nexus between Whiteside's residence and the evidence of stalking. Furthermore, the court concluded that the plain-view doctrine applied to the seizure of the firearms, as the incriminating character of the firearms was immediately apparent to the officers, who knew Whiteside was a felon. Therefore, the seizure of the firearms was valid, and the district court's denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed. View "United States v. Whiteside" on Justia Law

In September 2020, Jesse Fairley was observed by law enforcement conducting hand-to-hand drug transactions in a convenience store parking lot. When officers approached and searched the vehicle Fairley had been using, they found crack cocaine, marijuana, cash, and two loaded firearms. Fairley was charged and convicted of possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine, being a felon in possession of firearms, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He received a thirty-year sentence and appealed his conviction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied Fairley's motions for acquittal, finding sufficient evidence for the jury to convict him. Fairley raised five issues on appeal, including the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions on third-party guilt, the cumulative effect of evidentiary rulings, alleged improper communications with a defense witness, and improper closing remarks by the prosecution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that there was substantial evidence to support Fairley's convictions, including his proximity to the drugs and firearms, his observed drug transactions, and his evasive behavior. The court also determined that the jury instructions were not misleading, the evidentiary rulings were within the court's discretion, and there was no substantial interference with the witness's decision to testify. Additionally, the court found that the prosecution's closing remarks did not constitute plain error or prosecutorial misconduct. View "United States v. Fairley" on Justia Law

Larry Householder, former Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, and lobbyist Matthew Borges were convicted of conspiring to solicit and receive nearly $60 million in exchange for passing a billion-dollar bailout for a failing nuclear energy company, FirstEnergy Corp. Householder used the funds to support his bid for the speakership and to recruit candidates who would vote for him. Borges played a role in the conspiracy by attempting to disrupt a referendum campaign against the bailout legislation.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati found both Householder and Borges guilty after a 26-day trial. Householder was convicted of multiple counts, including public-official bribery, private-citizen bribery, and money laundering. Borges was also found guilty of participating in the conspiracy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found no reversible error, affirming the convictions. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings that Householder and Borges engaged in a quid pro quo arrangement with FirstEnergy. The court also upheld the jury instructions, finding them consistent with applicable law, and rejected Householder's claims of insufficient evidence, right to counsel violations, and judicial bias. Additionally, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or in admitting the guilty pleas of co-conspirators.Householder's sentence of twenty years, the statutory maximum under RICO, was deemed procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court emphasized the magnitude and severity of Householder's offense, referring to it as the "biggest corruption case in Ohio's history." Borges's arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court's evidentiary rulings were also rejected, and his conviction was affirmed. View "United States v. Householder" on Justia Law