Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant fled to the United States after a Hong Kong magistrate issued a warrant for his arrest on charges of smuggling, evasion of customs duties, bribery, conspiracy to defraud, and money laundering. On appeal, appellant challenged the district court's grant of an application under 28 U.S.C. 2467(d)(3) for a restraining order to preserve appellant's assets. The court concluded that the district court's restraining order was issued in a manner consistent with the procedural due process protections of 18 U.S.C. 983(j)(1)(A) where the applicable foreign criminal or forfeiture proceedings in this case afforded protections consistent with those afforded by the filing of a civil forfeiture complaint in the United States. The court need not decide whether all of those proceedings were required, or whether fewer or different proceedings would have sufficed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the proceedings appellant was afforded was sufficient to satisfy the mandate of section 2467(d)(3). View "Luan, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

After defendant was charged with drug-related offenses, the Government committed a series of disclosure violations leading to, and then extending beyond, the district court's declaration of a mistrial based upon such violations. Before retrial, the prosecutor belatedly disclosed more information that defendant had subpoenaed before the first trial. Defendant argued that he would have seen the first trial through to a verdict but for the Government's latest disclosure violation. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment under the Double Jeopardy Clause but the district court denied the motion. The court affirmed, concluding that retrial was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because the prosecutor's several violations were unintentional. View "United States v. McCallum" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his request for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court concluded that the sentencing court relied on defendant's "flawed" guideline range in this case, opening the door to "reexamination" of his sentence under a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding; because of the government's substantial assistance motion, no mandatory minimum was at work when the district court sentenced defendant; without the mandatory minimum bar, no provision kept Amendment 750 from having "the effect of lowering" defendant's applicable guideline range, leaving defendant eligible under the policy statement to pursue a sentence reduction; and the policy statement did not foreclose 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) defendants from receiving reductions on that basis. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re: Sealed Case" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction, after a retrial, of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute phencyclidine (PCP). On appeal, defendant argued that the district court violated Federal Rule of Evidence 701 when it permitted the FBI's administrative case agent to testify about his understanding of recorded conversations played for the jury. The court concluded that the district court's failure to enforce Rule 701's boundaries on lay-opinion testimony denied the jury the information it needed to assess the FBI agent's interpretations of recorded statements and the errors were not harmless. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Hampton" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felony and was sentenced to 37 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 24 months imprisonment imposed after the second revocation of his supervised release, arguing that his revocation sentences should be aggregated under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3). The court concluded that the 2003 amendment to section 3583(e)(3), adding the phrase "on any such revocation," resulted in the felony class imprisonment terms at the end of section 3583(e)(3) being per-revocation limits, and not aggregate limits. The court further held that upon each revocation of supervised release, a defendant could be sentenced to the felony class imprisonment limits at the end of section 3583(e)(3), without regard to prison time previously served for revocation of supervised release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Spencer" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court concluded that appellant was part of al Qaeda or the Taliban at the time of his capture, based on evidence of what he did and with whom he stayed in Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as his efforts to explain away that evidence, which the district court found implausible. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and those facts supported the conclusion that appellant was more likely than not a part of enemy forces at the time of his capture. View "Hussain v. Obama, et al" on Justia Law

Appellee, a Somali national, helped negotiate the ransom of a merchant vessel and its crew after they were captured by marauders in the Gulf of Aden. Appellee received a share of the ransom and also received a separate payment for his negotiation services. After appellee was appointed Director General of the Ministry of Education for the Republic of Somaliland, he was invited to attend an education conference in the United States. When appellee landed in the United States, he was promptly arrested. Appellee was indicted for conspiracy to commit piracy under the law of nations (Count One); committing piracy under the law of nations (Count Two); and conspiracy to commit hostage taking and aiding and abetting hostage taking (Counts Three and Four). On appeal, the government challenged the district court's dismissal of Counts One, Three, and Four, as well as limitation of Count Two. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Count One; reversed the district court's narrowing of the scope of Count Two to acts appellee performed while on the high seas; and reversed the dismissal of Counts Three and Four. View "United States v. Ali" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction on one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine. The court rejected defendant's claims of improper venue; ineffective assistance of counsel; inadmissible evidence seized as the fruit of an illegal vehicle stop; and inadmissible expert testimony of a non-expert witness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Watson" on Justia Law

Appellant, sentenced to prison for crimes involving powder and crack cocaine before Congress and the Sentencing Commission took steps to reduce the disparity in sentencing ranges between the two, sought declaratory and injunctive relief and possible damages after these efforts were directed at crimes involving lesser amounts of cocaine than his. The district court dismissed his suit on the ground that the only relief available to appellant was in habeas. Adopting Wilkinson v. Dotson's habeas-channeling rule, the court held that a federal prisoner need bring his claim in habeas only if success on the merits would "necessarily imply the invalidity of confinement or shorten its duration." Appellant's claim for declaratory relief avoided the habeas-channeling rule the court announced and its dismissal was improper. The court also concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to take up the merits of appellant's Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics claim because it was not based on plainly fictitious allegations and his pleading errors could be corrected through the liberal construction or amendment the court was accustomed to providing a pro se prisoner. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of appellant's complaint and remanded for further proceedings. View "Davis v. U.S. Sentencing Commission" on Justia Law

Appellant, a Guantanamo detainee, appealed from a judgment of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, appellant argued that the district court erred in not affording him protection due "medical personnel" under the First Geneva Convention. Because appellant had not established that he was "medical personnel" as defined by the Geneva Conventions, and because all other issues have been determined in the previous proceedings, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus. View "Al-Warafi v. Obama" on Justia Law