Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Wayne Holroyd, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 280 grams of crack cocaine. After his plea but before his sentencing, Congress amended the "safety valve" provision of the statute used to compute Holroyd's sentence, expanding the eligibility of a drug offender to be sentenced without regard to the statutory mandatory minimum. However, the district court sentenced Holroyd to the statutory minimum of 120 months' imprisonment. Holroyd argued that his counsel should have contended that he was eligible for sentencing without regard to the statutory minimum under the recently revised safety valve provision.The district court sentenced Holroyd to the mandatory minimum of 120 months' imprisonment. Holroyd's counsel did not move for reconsideration. Holroyd contended that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective in representing him at sentencing because counsel failed to give the correct interpretation to the safety valve provision. He argued that his two past convictions did not exclude him from the safety valve under the provision because the word "and" between subparagraphs must be read conjunctively so that only a defendant who has convictions satisfying all subparagraphs cumulatively is ineligible.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence. The court held that Holroyd's counsel's decision not to argue at sentencing or to move for reconsideration on the basis of Holroyd's eligibility for the safety valve was not deficient representation. The court noted that the Supreme Court recently adopted a different construction of the safety valve provision, which held that a defendant satisfies the criminal-history requirement only when he does not meet any of the disqualifying criteria. As Holroyd had a 6-point criminal history based on two previous 3-point offenses, he did not satisfy the criteria and was therefore ineligible for the safety valve. View "United States v. Holroyd" on Justia Law

In 2016, Jesse Benton, a political operative, received funds from Roman Vasilenko, a foreign national, and contributed those funds to a fundraiser supporting then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump. Benton was subsequently convicted of six felonies related to the unlawful contribution and related campaign finance filings. Benton appealed his conviction on several grounds, including challenges to the government’s decision to prosecute campaign finance crimes under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the admissibility of an earlier pardoned conviction, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the jury charge.The District Court denied Benton's motion to dismiss the charges, ruling that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could be applied to false campaign finance filings. The court also allowed the admission of Benton's earlier pardoned conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and its use at sentencing. After a three-day jury trial, Benton was found guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to eighteen months' incarceration and twenty-four months' supervised release.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the government had discretion to prosecute under either the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The court also found no error in the district court's admission of Benton's pardoned conviction under Rule 404(b) and declined to review Benton's challenge to the use of the pardoned conviction at sentencing. Finally, the court rejected Benton's challenges to the jury instructions, finding that any error was invited by Benton himself. View "United States v. Benton" on Justia Law

Deangelo Evans, a passenger in a car pulled over for traffic violations, was subjected to a pat-down search by the United States Park Police officers during the stop. The search revealed a firearm in his waistband, leading to his arrest and subsequent charge for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Evans moved to suppress the firearm as evidence, arguing that it was obtained through an unlawful search. The district court denied his motion, ruling that the pat-down search was justified due to the bulge in his pants that the officers believed might be a gun.The case was tried in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where Evans was convicted following a stipulated trial. He preserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the firearm as evidence.The case was then brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court reviewed the district court's findings of fact for clear error. The sole issue on appeal was whether the district court erred in crediting the police officers' testimony that they initiated a Terry frisk only after they saw a bulge in Mr. Evans’s pants that they believed might be a gun. Evans argued that the officers' testimony was inconsistent and implausible. However, the appellate court found that the inconsistencies Evans identified were not so glaring that the police officers' testimony must be a fabrication. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's decision, ruling that the protective pat-down search was justified and the firearm was admissible as evidence. View "USA v. Evans" on Justia Law

The case involves Lucas Denney, a former U.S. Army specialist and president of a Texas-based militia, who was arrested and indicted for assaulting a federal officer with a dangerous weapon during the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Denney pleaded guilty and was sentenced to fifty-two months in prison. The district court applied a two-level enhancement for "more than minimal planning" and a four-level enhancement for use of "a dangerous weapon" under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.Prior to the appeal, Denney had been found guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He challenged the application of the two enhancements in his sentence, arguing that his planning was for a political protest, not an assault, and that he did not intend to cause bodily harm with the weapon.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found ample evidence supporting the district court's conclusion that Denney had engaged in more than minimal planning for violent altercations with law enforcement officers. The court also found that Denney had admitted in open court to intentionally and forcibly hitting an officer with a PVC pipe, which was considered a dangerous weapon. The court concluded that the enhancements were correctly applied, and Denney's sentence was upheld. View "United States v. Denney" on Justia Law

The case involves John Maron Nassif, who was convicted of four misdemeanor offenses for his role in the January 6, 2021, riot at the United States Capitol. He was sentenced to seven months in prison. On appeal, Nassif challenged one of his convictions and his sentence. The challenged conviction was for demonstrating in a United States Capitol building. Nassif argued that the statute’s prohibition against parading, demonstrating, or picketing in Capitol buildings is facially overbroad and void for vagueness in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause.The district court rejected Nassif’s overbreadth claim, holding that the interior of the Capitol building is a nonpublic forum where the government may limit First Amendment activities so long as the restrictions are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral. The court reasoned that, in enacting section 5104(e)(2)(G), Congress permissibly determined that its institutional interest in peaceful space in which to do its lawmaking work supports the challenged limitation on demonstrating inside the Capitol buildings.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that the prohibition is reasonable and that it clearly applies to Nassif’s conduct, so it rejected his facial challenges and affirmed the conviction. The court also rejected Nassif’s challenges to his sentence and affirmed it. View "United States v. Nassif" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the appellant, Joey Green-Remache, who was charged with interstate violation of a protective order, following a jury trial. Green-Remache was also charged with first-degree burglary and kidnapping, but the jury hung on these charges. He later pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary, and the Government dismissed the kidnapping charge. The charges were based on the Government's claim that Green-Remache broke into his on-again-off-again girlfriend's apartment and forcibly transported her from D.C. to Maryland, contrary to a civil protective order. At trial, the Government presented a Clinical Psychologist who testified about the characteristics of coercive control relationships between sexual partners. The appellant claimed that the jury was likely heavily influenced by this "opinion testimony," which he argues was not connected to the circumstances of this case. Therefore, he requested that the case be remanded to determine whether counsel's failure to object to the Psychologist's testimony constituted ineffective assistance that prejudiced him.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the appellant's request for a remand. The court held that the record conclusively demonstrated that the appellant was not prejudiced by his counsel's alleged errors. The court noted that the Government introduced considerable evidence to support its theory that the appellant caused his girlfriend to travel with him to Maryland by force, coercion, duress, or fraud, apart from the Psychologist's testimony. This evidence included the girlfriend's grand jury testimony, recorded interviews, a 911 call, testimony from a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, and testimony from two eyewitnesses. The court concluded that this "overwhelming" evidence against the appellant undercut his claim that, but for his counsel's alleged errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different. The court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "USA v. Green-Remache" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in a case involving Clark Calloway Jr., a former U.S. Marine convicted of several firearms offenses. Calloway had acquired a fully automatic AK-47, which was inoperable, from an FBI source after expressing violent intentions on social media, advocating for ISIS, and pledging to commit violence against non-Muslims. He was arrested upon possession of the firearm and was later convicted on three counts under 18 U.S.C. § 922 and § 924.At sentencing, the district court calculated Calloway's total offense level under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and found that he posed a serious risk to public safety, which justified an upward departure in his sentence. Calloway appealed this decision, arguing that the inoperability of the gun he received negated significant public endangerment, and that the upward departure was duplicative of a separate sentencing enhancement applied by the court.The Court of Appeals disagreed with Calloway's arguments. It held that the district court was correct in its findings of fact that Calloway was dangerous at the time of the offense, and that his possession of the firearm and his intent to use it for violent purposes posed a serious risk to public safety. The court also rejected Calloway's argument that the upward departure was duplicative of the sentencing enhancement, as the latter was applied due to Calloway's intent to use the firearm for another felony offense, while the former was due to the risk he posed to public safety. View "USA v. Calloway" on Justia Law

In 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit presided over a case involving an appellant, Larry Brock, who had been convicted for his participation in the January 6th riot at the United States Capitol. Brock was convicted of six crimes, including obstructing Congress’s certification of the electoral count under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). The district court applied a three-level sentencing enhancement to Brock’s conviction, arguing his conduct resulted in “substantial interference with the administration of justice[.]” Brock challenged the interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2)’s elements and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.The Court of Appeals affirmed Brock’s conviction, agreeing with the district court’s interpretation of the elements of Section 1512(c)(2) and finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. However, the court concluded that the three-level sentencing enhancement for interfering with the “administration of justice” was inapplicable to interference with the legislative process of certifying electoral votes. As a result, the court vacated Brock’s sentence and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing without the application of the sentencing enhancement. View "USA v. Brock" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, former President Donald Trump was appealing a district court's denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment against him. The indictment was based on his actions contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election and interfering with the constitutional transfer of power to his successor. Trump argued that, as a former President, he was immune from prosecution for his official actions while in office.The appeals court disagreed and affirmed the district court's decision. It held that former presidents are not immune from federal criminal prosecution for their official acts. The court concluded that the Constitution, federal statutes, and history do not support the existence of such immunity. The court also noted that former President Trump's actions in question, if proven, constituted an unprecedented assault on the structure of the U.S. government.Additionally, the court rejected Trump's contention that his impeachment and acquittal by the Senate for the same or closely related conduct bar his subsequent criminal prosecution under principles of double jeopardy. The court held that impeachment is a political process and does not result in criminal punishment, and the crimes alleged in the indictment differ from the offense for which Trump was impeached. Thus, the court concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not apply.These holdings allowed the criminal prosecution against Trump to proceed. View "USA v. Trump" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Russell Alford, who was a participant in the Capitol protest on January 6, 2021, appealed his convictions and sentence for four misdemeanors. The misdemeanors were related to his unauthorized entry and conduct within the U.S. Capitol. Although Alford's behavior while in the Capitol was neither violent nor destructive, he was convicted for his role in disrupting the Congress's electoral certification and endangering public safety.Alford raised two issues in his appeal: the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for disorderly or disruptive conduct and the reasonableness of his twelve-month sentence. The court affirmed his convictions, noting that a jury could rationally conclude that his unauthorized presence as part of a mob contributed to the disruption of the Congress's proceedings. The court also affirmed his sentence, stating that the district court was within its discretion in imposing a within-Guidelines sentence after considering the circumstances.The case underscores that disorderly or disruptive conduct, as defined by relevant statutes, can include non-violent and non-destructive actions if they are likely to endanger public safety or create a public disturbance. Even passive conduct can be deemed disorderly or disruptive, depending on the context. The court also emphasized that sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct are not inherently unreasonable, especially when the defendant's conduct during trial or other factors may justify a greater sentence. View "USA v. Alford" on Justia Law