Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to crossing state lines to have sex with a minor. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. Defendant argued that the district court erred when it applied a sentencing enhancement based on his use of a computer to facilitate his crime. The court held that defendant waived this challenge when he stipulated to the enhancement in his plea agreement and raised no objection to its inclusion in the district court's calculation of his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Laslie" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence on one count of possession of powder cocaine with intent to distribute. Defendant contended that the arresting officers violated his right against self-incrimination; that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel; and that the district court failed to comply with certain procedural requirements at sentencing. The court concluded that, even assuming the admission of defendant's statement and head nod was error, the error was harmless; even if defendant's counsel's failure to renew the suppression motion was deficient under Strickland v. Washington, defendant could not show a substantial likelihood of a different result; and defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Brinson-Scott" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to persuading a person to travel in interstate commerce to engage in criminal sexual activity. On appeal, appellant challenged all of the computer- and Internet-related conditions of his supervised release. In the district court, however, he objected to only one of those conditions: the single-device restriction. The court held that the district court did not plainly err in imposing the unobjected-to conditions. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the single-device restriction on the record that court had before it. The district court explained that the one-device limit was necessary to ensure that the probation officer would be able to effectively monitor appellant's Internet use at a reasonable cost. Given that the Internet was appellant's avenue of choice for seeking out a victim, there was no doubt that such monitoring was itself reasonably related to the nature and circumstances of his offense, to deterring criminal conduct, and to protecting the public from further crimes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Legg" on Justia Law

Defendant moved to suppress evidence found in his apartment after police officers executed a search warrant and seized drugs, firearms, cash, and a variety of drug paraphernalia. Defendant argued that the police officer who prepared the search warrant affidavit made false statements in the affidavit and did so with reckless disregard for the truth. The court reversed the district court's grant of the motion to suppress and concluded that, even with the contested statements excised, the remaining portions of the officer's affidavit demonstrated probable cause for the search warrant. View "United States v. Cardoza" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of mail fraud and was sentenced to 8 years and 9 months of imprisonment, as well as ordered to pay restitution to his victims. Defendant appealed. The court held that defendant could challenge the application of the vulnerable victim enhancement but, under the due deference standard, the court upheld the enhancement where it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that the combination of the victims' characteristics made them particularly susceptible to defendant's fraud. The court remanded defendant's ineffective-assistance claim that his trial counsel made errors relating to the amount-of-loss calculation because it required further factual development. Finally, the court remanded to the district court to correct the specific amounts of restitution owed to each of defendant's victim so that the amounts added up to total $3,646,747.83. View "United States v. Fareri" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against the District of Columbia and others regarding the pretrial conditions of his confinement. The District agreed that the the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), requirement did not apply to plaintiff but urged the court to affirm the grant of summary judgment on his federal claims for failure to exhaust. The court joined its sister circuits and held that the PLRA exhaustion requirement did not apply because plaintiff was not a "prisoner" at the time he filed his complaint. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriately granted on his federal claims. As to his intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim, the court held that it had been abandoned because neither plaintiff's proposed amended complaint nor amicus brief, which he adopted, referenced that claim, and his pro se appellate brief provided no argument why the dismissal should be reversed. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and remanded plaintiff's federal claims to the district court. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Lesesne v. Doe, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former national treasurer of the Phi Beta Sigma fraternity, pled guilty to a single count of bank fraud and received a sentence of the time he had already served on earlier convictions, plus five years of supervised release. Defendant had successfully appealed his convictions of multiple counts of bank fraud because the district court erred in admitting certain of his statements in evidence. On appeal, defendant contended that his term of supervised release should be calculated as having commenced when he was ordered released on his own recognizance pending his ultimately successful appeal. The court disagreed and concluded that defendant's term of supervised release did not commence until he was sentenced, on the charge to which he pled guilty, to time served plus five years of supervised release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former CFO of the National City Christian Church, was convicted of offenses related to his role in swindling the church out of more than $850,000, much of it through arranging an increase in the church's line of credit at Adams National Bank. On appeal, defendant contended that the government was required to prove that he stole certain individuals' identity information and that these individuals suffered individual harm beyond that suffered by the church. The court rejected defendant's argument that 18 U.S.C. 1028A required evidence that defendant stole the identity information at issue. The court also held that defendant's argument, that section 1028A applied only where the individuals whose means of identification were unlawfully used have suffered individual harm, lacked merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

Appellant challenged the district court's decision to reimpose a 360-month sentence for numerous narcotics- and firearms-related convictions after the court vacated one of the convictions upon which his original sentence was based. The court upheld the sentence, concluding that the district court correctly understood its authority on remand and did not err in exercising that authority. The court also took the opportunity to collect and restate this circuit's rules regarding which arguments the district court could consider on a remand for resentencing when the remand order provided no express instructions. View "United States v. Blackson" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Colombian national, was extradited for, charged with, and convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine with the knowledge or intent that it would be imported into the United States. On appeal, defendant raised several challenges to his conviction and sentence. Most significantly, defendant maintained that his trial attorney suffered from a conflict of interest that deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free representation and that excessive trial delays violated his constitutional and statutory speedy trial rights. The court concluded that neither claim had merit. Defendant made a rational and informed decision that, given the stipulation and the limited nature of his attorney's conflict, he wanted to proceed with counsel's representation. The district court's explanation of trial delays was sufficient. As to defendant's remaining claims, the court concluded either that the district court made no error or that any such error was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed both the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Lopesierra-Gutierrez" on Justia Law