Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to possess and distribute one kilogram or more of PCP. On appeal, defendant claimed that his trial and sentencing were defective in several respects. Defendant's ineffective assistance claim turned on two alleged deficiencies in his counsel's performance, both of which related to the "safety valve" provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court concluded that, in defendant's case, the record supported neither a conclusive determination that his ineffective assistance claim would succeed, nor one that it must fail. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings as to defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court concluded that defendant's other claims lacked merit. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

Prior to Freeman v. United States, the district court denied defendant's 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) sentence. The court held that it had jurisdiction of defendant's appeal notwithstanding his release from incarceration and the commencement of his term of supervised release; defendant's appeal was not moot because applying the amended version of the supervisory release provision would be impermissibly retroactive and, in not applying this amended provision, it becomes likely that defendant's term of supervisory release could be impacted by the outcome of this appeal; it remained for the district court to address the pre-amendment inter-circuit conflict as to which of two provisions on supervisory release applied to defendant in considering his pending motion to reduce his supervisory term; in the absence of necessary overlap between the reasoning of the plurality and concurring opinions in the Supreme Court's decision in Freeman to discern a narrower opinion that constituted binding precedent, defendant qualified for relief under section 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Epps" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm during dangerous offenses, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant contended that the district court's self-defense instruction erroneously diluted the government's burden of proof. The court held that the jury instruction did not contradict any precedent of the court or the Supreme Court. Nor did it contravene any clear legal norm. Therefore, the court concluded that the instruction was not plainly erroneous and there was no need to consider the remaining elements of the plain error standard. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Purvis" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341, and was sentenced to 60 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release, as well as ordered to pay restitution to his victims. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court held that defendant's appeal was not barred; rehabilitation was not the only factor the district court considered in determining defendant's prison time; the court found no support for the claim that defendant's prison term was longer than a wealthy person's term would have been for a similar crime; and because the government conceded at oral argument that defendant could not be ordered to enroll in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, the court modified his sentence to reflect the fact that enrollment was voluntary. As modified, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Godoy" on Justia Law

Appellant, indicted for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, pled guilty pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, which generally specifies an agreed-upon sentence or sentencing range. On appeal, appellant primarily argued that he was entitled to a sentence reduction because the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines governing crack-related offenses were retroactively lowered after he was sentenced. The court held that appellant's sentence was not based on a Guideline sentencing range, but was instead based on a plea agreement made under Rule 11(c)(1)(C). Therefore, the Sentencing Commission's change to the crack Guidelines sentencing range did not make appellant eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court further held that appellant's choice-of-counsel argument was meritless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Duvall" on Justia Law

Appellant, once a prominent Washington lobbyist, was convicted of honest-services fraud, paying an illegal gratuity, and conspiracy relating to his provision of meals, tickets, and other gifts to public officials. Appellant's convictions stemmed from his involvement in Jack Abramoff's lobbying team. On appeal, appellant challenged the district court's instructions on the honest-services counts, the sufficiency of the evidence on the illegal-gratuity count, and the admission of evidence of his lawful campaign contributions. Although each of appellant's arguments was weighty, the court ultimately affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Ring" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, together with the Second Amendment Foundation, contended that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) was inapplicable to common-law misdemeanants as a class and, alternatively, that application of the statute to this class of individuals violated the Second Amendment. Plaintiff was convicted some forty years ago for common-law misdemeanor assault and battery and consequently was barred for life from ever possessing a firearm under section 922(g)(1). The court held that plaintiff's statutory arguments were unpersuasive and that disarmament of common-law misdemeanants as a class was substantially related to the important governmental objective of crime prevention. Therefore, the court rejected plaintiff's statutory and constitutional challenges, affirming the district court's dismissal of the action. View "Schrader, et al v. Holder, Jr., et al" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of three murders and sentenced to death. This appeal stemmed from appellant's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, requests to the FBI seeking information related to the FBI's investigation of him. Appellant appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the FBI, which concluded that the FBI had released all non-exempt documents as required by FOIA; that the FBI performed an adequate search; and that the FBI correctly applied FOIA Exemptions 3, 7(C), and 7(D). The court affirmed the judgment and rejected appellant's argument that the FBI improperly withheld the 125 pages at issue and appellant's complaint about the alleged inadequacy of the search. The court concluded that the FBI had released all reasonably segregable, non-exempt material to appellant. View "Hodge v. FBI, et al" on Justia Law

Appellant alleged that the District of Columbia violated rights conferred upon him by Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 101, 596 U.N.T.S. 261. Appellant is a national of Jamaica and currently incarcerated in a federal penitentiary. Assuming without deciding that Article 36(1)(b) conferred individually enforceable rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the court concluded that appellant's suit was untimely. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the District of Columbia. View "Earle v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to Student Aid Fraud, Bank Fraud, and Social Security Fraud. Defendant appealed from the district court's judgment on several grounds. The court held that the district court erred in describing the elements of Student Aid Fraud; however, the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights. The court found no merit in any of the remaining claims raised by defendant on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law