Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The DC Circuit affirmed defendant's 151 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to the distribution of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when applying the two-level computer-use enhancement under USSG 2G2.2(b)(6); the district court adequately considered the need to avoid unwarranted disparities and did not abuse its discretion when concluding that defendant was differently situated from defendants for whom other district court judges granted downward variances; the district court did not procedurally err when invoking the particular characteristics of defendant's offense to justify his sentence; the district court considered the aspects of defendant's crime that justified the disparity between his within-Guidelines sentence and the below-Guidelines sentences in this circuit; challenged statements did not detract from the district court's reasoned consideration of defendant's arguments for a downward variance; and the within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Mattea" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction under District of Columbia law of sexually abusing a minor, and under federal law of producing, possessing, and distributing child pornography. The court held that the jury heard sufficient evidence from which to infer that defendant induced the minor's lascivious exhibition of his genitals in order to photograph it. In regard to the form of the government's questions, the court held that the district court had discretion to let the government ask, a very reticent witness, to clarify the nature of his sexual contact with defendant in the manner that it did. View "United States v. Torres" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the denial of a collateral attack pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 on a conviction by a jury of crimes relating to a series of armed bank robberies. The DC Circuit held that defendant's contention that his trial and appellate counsel failed to object to the closure of voir dire, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was foreclosed in light of Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017), because he has not shown prejudicial error from the voir dire closure. The court held that defendant's second contention regarding the plea offer required remand because the motion and the files and records of the case did not conclusively show that he was entitled to no relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Aguiar" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. The court held that the presumption against extraterritoriality applied in this case and the evidence showed that the relevant conduct occurred in the United States; the court rejected defendant's "manufactured venue" claim and the district court did not err in determining that venue was not a question for the jury to decide; and the court rejected defendant's contention that venue was not proper in D.C. The court held that defendant was not denied due process of law and he failed to establish a violation under Brady v. Maryland. Finally, the court rejected defendant's claim that the government knowingly presented false evidence at trial in violation of Napue v. Illinois. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims. View "United States v. Sitzmann" on Justia Law

Proctor, a cocaine user and informant, told the Metropolitan Police Department that a"Boo" was selling crack cocaine in Lincoln Heights. The cell-phone number Proctor provided belonged to Haight. Shown a photograph Proctor said, “That’s Boo.” After Proctor made three controlled purchases of cocaine, officers executed a warrant at the apartment where Boo sold the cocaine. Officer Clifford, outside the building, saw two men jump from a window and run; he later testified that he was “90 percent” sure that one was Haight. Ferguson, who lived in the apartment, eventually testified that Haight used his apartment to process and sell crack cocaine. Officers searched Ferguson’s apartment and found drugs, a loaded handgun, cash, and a cell phone with a picture of Haight on its home screen. A bedroom window screen had been pushed out. Weeks later, the police arrested Haight. While staking out Haight’s apartment building, officers searched a backpack carried by Haight’s girlfriend as she left the building. It contained several pounds of marijuana, Haight’s employment documents, and writings that expressed Haight’s desire to deal drugs. After securing a warrant, the police searched Haight’s apartment and found another gun. Convicted on six counts,Haight was sentenced to 150 months in prison. The D.C. Circuit affirmed Haight’s conviction, upholding the district court’s refusal to postpone his trial and evidentiary rulings, but remanded an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Vacating his sentence, the court found that Haight was subject to a 15-year mandatory-minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act because of three prior convictions for violent felonies and serious drug offenses. View "United States v. Haight" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Although the district court concluded defendant was eligible to have his sentence reduced, it denied the motion after considering defendant's leadership role in the drug conspiracies, the large scale of the narcotics distribution operation, the purity of the narcotics involved, and that the sentence was determined upon applying a variance. The court held that the district court did not err procedurally or abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to reduce his sentence. View "United States v. Galaviz" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit joined its sister circuits and held that defendant was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) because Amendment 782 does not lower the sentencing range in the career-offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. In 2012, defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful distribution of more than 28 grams of cocaine base and was sentenced to 156 months in prison. The court held that the fact that Amendment 782 lowered the sentencing range for defendant's underlying offense did not support a sentence reduction under Section 3582(c)(2). Furthermore, a reduction of defendant's sentence would not be consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Akers" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit joined its sister circuits and held that defendant was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) because Amendment 782 does not lower the sentencing range in the career-offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. In 2012, defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful distribution of more than 28 grams of cocaine base and was sentenced to 156 months in prison. The court held that the fact that Amendment 782 lowered the sentencing range for defendant's underlying offense did not support a sentence reduction under Section 3582(c)(2). Furthermore, a reduction of defendant's sentence would not be consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Akers" on Justia Law

Defendants Stoddard and Woodruff were convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin. Defendant Cobble, who was tried together with Stoddard and Woodruff, was acquitted of the same charges but convicted of conspiracy to launder money. The DC Circuit affirmed the denial of defendants' motions to suppress evidence obtained as a result of wiretaps because the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Government had met the "necessity" requirement; affirmed the denial of Stoddard's and Woodruff's motions for acquittal; affirmed the denial of Woodruff's motion in limine to exclude evidence of a prior conviction if Woodruff had testified in his own defense; found no plain error in the district court's jury instructions on the money-laundering charge; (5) reversed the denial of Cobble's motion for acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; vacated the sentences of Stoddard and Woodruff, remanded for resentencing, and held that, in order for a defendant to be sentenced based on a mandatory minimum triggered by a certain quantity of drugs, a jury must find the drug quantity attributable to the defendant on an individualized basis, not just the drug quantity attributable to the conspiracy as a whole; and reserved judgment on whether the district court properly applied the career-offender enhancement before sentencing Woodruff. View "United States v. Stoddard" on Justia Law

Defendants Brown, Boston, and Mathews were convicted of crimes related to the unlawful distribution of PCP. Defendant Ira Adona pleaded guilty before trial. The DC Circuit affirmed Brown and Boston's convictions and sentences. The court vacated Adona and Mathews' sentences, remanding for resentencing. The court held that Adona's appeal was not barred by the appeal waiver and that the district court plainly erred in its consecutive-sentencing analysis. The court also held that the district court properly calculated Matthews' Sentencing Guidelines range, but it failed to explain adequately its variance from that range. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law