Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Wayne Lozier, Jr., a licensed bounty hunter in Louisiana, traveled to Missouri to detain a fugitive, R.C., who had failed to appear for her court date in Louisiana. Lozier entered a residence in Missouri, handcuffed R.C., and transported her towards Mississippi. During this time, the residence owner alerted law enforcement, leading to an investigation by Officer Jeffrey Atkins. Lozier was found to have violated Missouri laws by not being licensed in Missouri and failing to notify local law enforcement before apprehending R.C.A federal grand jury indicted Lozier for kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap. Lozier moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing his actions were lawful as an agent of a bail bondsman. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied these motions, stating Lozier's arguments were factual challenges. At trial, Lozier admitted to the Missouri law violations but contended his actions were standard fugitive apprehension. He objected to a jury instruction that he claimed deprived the jury of deciding whether his actions were unlawful. The jury found Lozier guilty on both counts, and he was sentenced to 120 months on each count, to run concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the jury instruction (Instruction 16) created a conclusive presumption that Lozier acted unlawfully by violating Missouri law, thus removing the jury's ability to consider justification or excuse. This violated Lozier's due process rights. The court held that this error was not harmless and vacated Lozier's convictions, remanding the case for a new trial. View "United States v. Lozier" on Justia Law

Jerell Wilson was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The charge stemmed from an investigation into the shooting death of Dolorean Wade, during which law enforcement found a Smith and Wesson .40 caliber handgun at Wilson's residence. Wilson was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 96 months in prison. He appealed his conviction, sentence, and the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa handled Wilson's case. Wilson had several disputes with his counsel and requested to represent himself, leading to delays and a competency evaluation. The court found Wilson competent to stand trial and denied his motion to dismiss the indictment based on alleged violations of the Speedy Trial Act. Wilson was ultimately convicted and sentenced, with the court granting an upward variance based on aggravating factors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed Wilson's appeal. The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no violation of the Speedy Trial Act, sufficient evidence to support Wilson's conviction, and no error in the application of sentencing enhancements. The appellate court also upheld the substantive reasonableness of Wilson's 96-month sentence, noting the district court's consideration of aggravating conduct and the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Jerell Wilson" on Justia Law

Anthony Lemicy was convicted by a jury on four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). The district court sentenced him to consecutive 30-year terms for each count, totaling 120 years. Lemicy appealed, raising several claims including improper waiver of his right to counsel, violation of his right to a fair trial due to appearing in an orange jumpsuit and restraints, improper jury instructions, insufficient evidence, incorrect calculation of criminal history points, and an unreasonable sentence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri initially appointed a federal public defender for Lemicy, but after conflicts, he chose to represent himself with standby counsel. The court repeatedly informed him of the risks and limitations of self-representation, which he acknowledged. During the trial, Lemicy appeared in jail-issued clothing by choice, despite the court offering him the opportunity to change. The jury was instructed to disregard his appearance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. It found that Lemicy knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, and the district court did not err in its handling of standby counsel. The court also determined that Lemicy was not compelled to wear the orange jumpsuit and any error was invited by him. The jury instructions were deemed appropriate, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court upheld the calculation of criminal history points and found the sentence reasonable, given the severity of the offenses and the involvement of multiple victims.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that there were no violations of Lemicy’s constitutional rights and that the sentence imposed was within the court’s discretion. View "United States v. Lemicy" on Justia Law

Lester Brown was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit cyberstalking, cyberstalking resulting in death, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Brown, who dealt marijuana in Kansas City, had a history of conflict with his associates, including the disappearance and murder of Ryan Cobbins. In 2018, Brown sent threatening messages to Christopher Harris and Antwon Tolefree, including demands for money and threats of violence. Brown used tracking devices to monitor Harris's movements, ultimately leading to Harris's murder in front of his daughter.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri sentenced Brown to life plus 180 months in prison. Brown appealed, challenging several evidentiary rulings and the sufficiency of the evidence for two of his convictions. He argued that certain hearsay statements were improperly admitted and that evidence of his prior wrongful conduct should have been excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the contested hearsay statements, as they either fell under exceptions or were not hearsay. The court also determined that evidence of Brown's prior wrongful conduct was intrinsic to the charged crimes and highly probative, thus not subject to exclusion under Rule 404(b) or Rule 403. Finally, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to support Brown's convictions for conspiracy to commit cyberstalking and cyberstalking resulting in death, given the threats, use of tracking devices, and the fatal shooting of Harris.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding Brown's convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Mar Maluoth was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of a machinegun in violation of federal law. During a police surveillance operation, officers observed suspicious behavior involving Maluoth, leading to a traffic stop. During the stop, officers found a loaded Glock handgun modified to be a machinegun under the front passenger seat where Maluoth was sitting. Maluoth denied placing the gun there and claimed his movements were due to searching for his lighter and cigarettes. However, the jury found him guilty based on the evidence presented.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska sentenced Maluoth to 70 months in prison, which was an upward variance from the advisory guidelines range of 41 to 51 months. The court considered factors such as the obliterated serial number on the firearm and Maluoth's history of obstructing justice. Maluoth appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict him and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Maluoth guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that Maluoth's furtive movements and the location of the firearm supported the jury's verdict. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The district court properly considered the relevant sentencing factors, including the obliterated serial number and Maluoth's criminal history. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Maluoth" on Justia Law

Eric Virrueta pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in a warrantless search of his vehicle after a traffic stop. The evidence included methamphetamine and marijuana. Virrueta challenged the validity of the traffic stop, the extension of the stop, and the search of the vehicle, arguing that the search was not supported by probable cause and that the consent given by his parole agent was invalid.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denied Virrueta's motion to suppress. The court found that the initial traffic stop was valid based on reasonable suspicion and probable cause, as Corporal Fischer had identified Virrueta driving without a valid license. The court also concluded that the extension of the stop was justified by the strong odor of raw marijuana emanating from the vehicle, which provided probable cause for the search. Additionally, the court upheld the search based on the consent given by Virrueta's parole agent, who had been informed of multiple parole violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court's rulings, agreeing that the traffic stop was valid, the extension of the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity, and the search of the vehicle was supported by probable cause. The court also held that the parole agent's consent provided an independent basis for the search. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Virrueta" on Justia Law

Ethan Driskill and Marchello Oliver were charged with multiple drug-related offenses, including distribution of fentanyl and possession of firearms. Driskill was charged with distribution resulting in death, among other counts, while Oliver faced charges including possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and cocaine. Both defendants entered plea agreements; Oliver pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, and Driskill pleaded guilty to distribution resulting in death.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas sentenced Oliver to 168 months, an above-guidelines sentence, and Driskill to 456 months, a within-guidelines sentence. Both defendants appealed, arguing their sentences were substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the sentences for procedural errors and substantive reasonableness. For Oliver, the court found no procedural errors in the district court's application of an upward departure under USSG § 5K2.1, which was based on the finding that Oliver's distribution of fentanyl resulted in a death. The court also found the sentence substantively reasonable, noting that the district court had appropriately considered the relevant factors and the extent of the departure.For Driskill, the court noted that his within-guidelines sentence was presumed reasonable. The court found that the district court had properly considered mitigating factors and the significant differences between Driskill and Oliver, including their criminal histories and the specific charges to which they pleaded guilty. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Driskill.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentences imposed on both Oliver and Driskill. View "United States v. Driskill" on Justia Law

A jury found Arjune Ahmed guilty of two counts of kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). The charges stemmed from incidents involving two women, O.B. and A.J. O.B. reported being forcibly taken from a casino in Sioux City, Iowa, to South Sioux City, Nebraska, where she was sexually assaulted. DNA evidence linked Ahmed to the crime. A.J. reported a similar incident where she was taken to a park and sexually assaulted. Ahmed's DNA was also found at the scene of A.J.'s assault.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa denied Ahmed's motion to sever the counts into separate trials, arguing that a single trial would prejudice him. The court also allowed the introduction of evidence of a prior similar offense committed by Ahmed. Ahmed was convicted and sentenced to 480 months' imprisonment. He appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to sever, the admission of prior offense evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the consideration of uncharged conduct at sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that severance was not required because evidence of each kidnapping would have been admissible in separate trials under Federal Rule of Evidence 413, which allows evidence of prior sexual assaults to show propensity. The court also found that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior sexual assault under Rule 413 and that the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Ahmed's motion for judgment of acquittal, finding the evidence sufficient to support the convictions. The court also upheld the district court's consideration of uncharged conduct at sentencing, noting that current law permits such consideration. Finally, the court found no clear error in the district court's findings regarding additional sexual assaults by Ahmed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Ahmed" on Justia Law

Joseph Garner pleaded guilty to Receipt/Distribution of Child Pornography, acknowledging a statutory five-year mandatory minimum sentence, which could increase to fifteen years if he had a prior conviction for certain sexual offenses. The government dismissed a second count of Attempted Production of Child Pornography. Garner's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) noted a 2015 Texas conviction for Indecency with a Child, which the PSR determined qualified as a predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1). Garner objected to this enhancement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas overruled Garner's objection, referencing the Eighth Circuit's decision in United States v. Sonnenberg. The court adopted the PSR without change, determining an advisory guidelines range of 135 to 168 months, adjusted to 180 to 188 months due to the enhanced statutory minimum. Garner was sentenced to 240 months followed by a lifetime of supervised release. Garner appealed, arguing that his Texas conviction should not trigger the fifteen-year mandatory minimum.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation and application of statutory sentencing provisions de novo. The court employed the categorical approach, examining whether the Texas statute criminalized conduct that qualifies for the enhancement. The court referenced prior decisions, including United States v. Weis and Sonnenberg, which interpreted similar statutes. The Eighth Circuit concluded that Garner's Texas conviction for indecent exposure with a child categorically related to abusive sexual conduct involving a minor, affirming the district court's judgment. The court denied the government's motion to dismiss the appeal and Garner's motion to file a pro se supplemental brief. View "United States v. Garner" on Justia Law

Rodrigo Castillo pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The district court, adopting the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), determined Castillo’s advisory guidelines sentencing range to be 135 to 168 months and sentenced him to 140 months imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. Castillo’s co-defendant, Roberto Nava, received a 120-month sentence under a binding plea agreement. Castillo appealed, arguing that the 20-month disparity between his and Nava’s sentences created an unwarranted sentencing disparity, making his sentence procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska accepted Castillo’s guilty plea and sentenced him based on the PSR’s recommendations. Castillo objected to the PSR’s base offense level calculation and the two-level increase for the importation of methamphetamine but withdrew these objections at sentencing. He also moved for a downward variance to match Nava’s 120-month sentence, which the court denied, citing the seriousness of Castillo’s offense and the differences in the co-defendants' conduct and plea agreements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed Castillo’s appeal, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. The court found no procedural error, noting that the district court had considered the sentencing disparity and the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court also held that Castillo’s sentence was substantively reasonable, given the legitimate distinctions between the co-defendants and the presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding Castillo’s 140-month sentence. View "United States v. Castillo" on Justia Law