Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Rene Ramirez Gomez unlawfully entered the United States and committed multiple crimes, including raping his biological daughter. After serving a short state-court sentence, he was deported but re-entered the U.S. illegally. He then sexually abused the three young children of his new girlfriend in Indiana. Indiana charged him with child molestation, while the federal government charged him with failure to register as a sex offender and illegal re-entry. Ramirez Gomez pled guilty to the federal charges and was sentenced to 51 months in prison, to be served consecutively to his anticipated state-court sentence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee sentenced Ramirez Gomez to 51 months in prison for the federal charges, to run concurrently with one Tennessee sentence but consecutively to any other state sentences. Ramirez Gomez appealed, challenging the procedural aspects of his federal sentence, specifically the application of an eight-level enhancement and the imposition of a consecutive sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court correctly applied the eight-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A3.5(b)(1)(C) based on a judicial finding that Ramirez Gomez committed a sex offense against a minor while in failure to register status, without requiring a conviction. The court also found that the district court did not err in imposing a consecutive sentence, as it had considered the relevant guideline and provided an adequate explanation for its decision. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentencing decision. View "U.S. v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Calvin Cogdill pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court determined that Cogdill had committed three prior drug offenses on different occasions, which subjected him to an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). This decision was made over Cogdill’s objection, who argued that the determination should be made by a jury, not a judge.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee sentenced Cogdill to a 15-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment based on the ACCA enhancement. Cogdill appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit initially affirmed the sentence. However, the Supreme Court vacated this decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its ruling in Erlinger v. United States, which clarified that a jury must decide whether prior offenses were committed on different occasions for ACCA purposes.Upon reconsideration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s error for harmlessness. The court concluded that the error was not harmless because the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any rational jury would have found that Cogdill’s prior offenses were committed on different occasions. The court noted that the evidence regarding the timing, proximity, and relationship of the offenses was insufficient to meet this burden.As a result, the Sixth Circuit vacated Cogdill’s sentence and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court also left it to the district court to address any potential double jeopardy issues on remand. View "United States v. Cogdill" on Justia Law

Duane Gary Underwood, II was convicted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of a stolen firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Underwood appealed his conviction on ten grounds, including the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), the legality of his detention and search, the validity of a search warrant for his phone, the admissibility of certain evidence, voir dire procedures, the sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, and the licensure status of the prosecuting Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA).The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Underwood's pretrial motions to suppress evidence and dismiss charges. The court admitted evidence from Underwood's phone and grand jury testimony under Rule 803(5). The jury convicted Underwood on all counts, and he was sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. Post-trial, Underwood moved to dismiss his conviction, arguing that the AUSA's administrative suspension for nonpayment of bar dues constituted prosecutorial misconduct and a jurisdictional defect. The district court denied this motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) is constitutional, the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain and search Underwood, and the search warrant for Underwood's phone was valid. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the contested evidence or in the voir dire procedures. The evidence was deemed sufficient to support the convictions, and the jury instructions were appropriate. The court also ruled that the AUSA's administrative suspension did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct or create a jurisdictional defect, and there was no Brady violation. View "United States v. Underwood" on Justia Law

Lamon Simmons was investigated for drug trafficking by the Grand Rapids Vice Unit, which used a reliable informant to conduct controlled buys of cocaine from Simmons. The police obtained a warrant to search Simmons's primary residence on Weatherwood Drive and another house on Holly Street, based on evidence from the controlled buys and surveillance. The search of the Weatherwood home yielded firearms, cash, marijuana, and a money counter, while the Holly Street home contained various drugs, firearms, and other contraband. Simmons was charged with multiple drug and firearm offenses.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Simmons's motion to suppress evidence from the Weatherwood home, finding that the warrant was supported by probable cause. The court noted that the affidavit detailed Simmons's ongoing drug trafficking and the likelihood that evidence would be found at his residence. The court also found that even if the warrant lacked probable cause, the good-faith exception would apply.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the warrant affidavit provided a substantial basis for finding probable cause, given the informant's reliability, the controlled buys, and the surveillance confirming Simmons's residence. The court emphasized that ongoing drug trafficking activities create a reasonable inference that evidence would be found at the dealer's home. The court also noted that the affidavit was supported by the officer's extensive experience in drug investigations. Thus, the search of Simmons's Weatherwood home was deemed constitutional, and the motion to suppress was properly denied. View "United States v. Simmons" on Justia Law

Raymon Risner was charged with several drug trafficking and firearms offenses. He moved to dismiss the firearm-related counts, arguing that the statutes violated the Second Amendment. The district court denied his motion, and Risner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. He retained the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss and filed a timely appeal.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied Risner’s motion to dismiss the firearm-related counts. Risner then pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. The district court dismissed the felon-in-possession charge pursuant to the plea agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Risner lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) because the charge was dismissed and there were no collateral consequences. The court also held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) did not violate the Second Amendment, as the statute’s restriction on using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime was consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court concluded that the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of weapons for unlawful purposes, and Risner’s challenge failed. View "United States v. Risner" on Justia Law

Bernhard Jakits was convicted of eight counts of child exploitation-related crimes. In late 2018, Jakits began corresponding online with a woman named Ashley, who performed sex acts for him on live videocalls for money. Ashley had two teenage daughters, Jae and Nik. While Ashley was incarcerated, Jae began communicating with Jakits using her mother's phone. Jakits offered Jae money for nude photos, which she sent. He later asked if Nik wanted to earn money as well, and Jae sent him a nude photo of Nik. Jakits then requested a live videocall with both girls, offering them more money and other incentives.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus presided over the case. Before trial, the court granted motions to exclude evidence related to other minors and the sexual activities of Jae and Nik with other men. A jury trial resulted in Jakits being convicted on all counts except one, where he was found guilty of a lesser-included attempt charge. The district court denied Jakits’s motion for a judgment of acquittal and sentenced him to 216 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. Jakits argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, that the jury was incorrectly instructed, and that the exclusion of certain evidence violated his constitutional rights. The court found that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, including the lascivious nature of the images and the intent behind Jakits’s communications. The court also held that the jury instructions were proper and that the exclusion of evidence was not arbitrary or disproportionate. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Jakits’s convictions on all eight counts. View "U.S. v. Jakits" on Justia Law

Victor Silvers was convicted of the premeditated murder of his estranged wife, Brittney Silvers, who was an active member of the United States Army, and was shot and killed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Silvers was also found guilty of attempted murder, domestic violence, violation of a protection order, possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and the use of a firearm during a crime of violence. He was sentenced to life in prison.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky took judicial notice that Fort Campbell was within the United States' special maritime and territorial jurisdiction. Silvers challenged this, arguing that the jury should have determined the jurisdictional status. He also moved to exclude a juror who wore a shirt supporting military veterans and had served in the Navy, claiming potential bias. Additionally, Silvers argued that his mandatory life sentence was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in taking judicial notice of the jurisdictional status of Fort Campbell, as it was a legal question rather than a factual one for the jury. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to deny Silvers's motion to exclude the juror, as the juror assured impartiality and the voir dire process was deemed adequate. Finally, the court upheld Silvers's mandatory life sentence, citing binding Supreme Court precedent and the Sixth Circuit's own precedent, which did not find such sentences to be cruel and unusual punishment.The Sixth Circuit affirmed both Silvers's conviction and his sentence. View "United States v. Silvers" on Justia Law

Armani Davis-Malone, while on probation for credit-card fraud, began selling prescription pills in Detroit, Michigan. Law enforcement, alerted by an informant, conducted two controlled buys where Davis-Malone sold oxycodone to an undercover agent. Subsequently, federal agents searched his car, finding a fully automatic handgun, over 100 oxycodone pills, and 200 grams of marijuana. Davis-Malone was charged with possessing a firearm as a felon and pleaded guilty. The district court sentenced him to 60 months, below the guidelines range of 70 to 87 months.The Sentencing Commission later amended the guidelines, reducing Davis-Malone’s range to 57 to 71 months. Davis-Malone sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), supported by a probation officer’s report and a joint stipulation from both parties recommending a 57-month sentence. Despite this, the district court denied the reduction, stating that the original 60-month sentence was near the lower end of the amended range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. Davis-Malone argued that the district court erred legally by finding him ineligible for a reduction and abused its discretion by not providing a detailed explanation. The Sixth Circuit found that the district court did not commit a legal error, interpreting the order as a discretionary denial rather than a finding of ineligibility. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as it had considered the relevant factors and the simple facts of the case justified the use of a form order. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "United States v. Davis-Malone" on Justia Law

George Short was observed by police driving 25 miles per hour over the speed limit and without a car hood. When officers attempted to stop him, he led them on a high-speed chase. Upon his arrest, a rifle was found in his car. Due to his prior felony convictions, Short was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently pled guilty. He was sentenced as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) due to his prior violent felonies.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville handled the initial proceedings. Short objected to the ACCA enhancement, arguing that the factual basis for his plea did not include an admission that his prior felonies were committed on separate occasions, as required by the ACCA. The district court overruled his objection, relying on Sixth Circuit precedent that allowed the court to determine whether the prior felonies were committed on different occasions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in accepting Short’s guilty plea despite the written factual basis not mentioning the separate occasions element. The court found that the indictment, presentence report (PSR), and sentencing hearing provided sufficient evidence that Short’s prior felonies were committed on separate occasions. The court emphasized that Rule 11(b)(3) does not require every element to be included in the written factual basis, and the entire record can be considered to determine if there is a sufficient factual basis for the plea. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Short’s ACCA conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Short" on Justia Law

In 2018, Alexander Sittenfeld, a Cincinnati city council member, was involved in a scheme where he solicited campaign donations in exchange for promises of official action. Sittenfeld had conversations with Chinedum Ndukwe, a local developer working with the FBI, and undercover agents posing as investors. Sittenfeld solicited donations from Ndukwe and later from an undercover agent, Rob, in exchange for supporting a property development project at 435 Elm Street. Despite the conversations being recorded, the evidence was not overwhelming. However, a jury found that Sittenfeld solicited or accepted campaign donations in exchange for his promise to support the project.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio convicted Sittenfeld of attempted Hobbs Act extortion and federal-program bribery. Sittenfeld moved for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence and constructive amendment of the indictment. The district court denied both motions and sentenced Sittenfeld to sixteen months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. Sittenfeld argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove an explicit quid pro quo and that the indictment was constructively amended. The court held that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient for a rational jury to find Sittenfeld guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that the jury instructions, although broader than the indictment, did not result in a constructive amendment. The court affirmed Sittenfeld's conviction, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's verdict and that there was no substantial likelihood that Sittenfeld was convicted of an offense not charged in the indictment. View "United States v. Sittenfeld" on Justia Law