Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted on seven counts of forging or counterfeiting postage meter stamps and three counts of smuggling the district court sentenced Defendant to 36 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay $256,441.78 in restitution to the United States Postal Service (“USPS”). Defendant appealed challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the district court’s estimate of the face value of the counterfeit stamps for purposes of calculating his advisory sentencing guidelines range, the amount of restitution ordered, and the substantive reasonableness of his prison sentence.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions, but vacated the district court’s restitution order and remanded for the district court to limit the restitution award to the loss due to forgery, and otherwise affirmed Defendant’s sentence. The court held that Defendant’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge fails as to all counts if it is construed as a request for a judgment of acquittal. And it fares no better if construed as a request for a new trial. To prevail on this claim, even assuming he did not forfeit it, Defendant would need to show that “the evidence weigh[ed] heavily” against the verdict. Here, the evidence did not weigh heavily against the verdict but rather provided ample support for it. Moreover, the court found that neither statute of conviction lists as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity. Therefore, restitution to the USPS should have been limited to “the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of” Defendant’s forgery convictions. View "United States v. Bradley Matheny" on Justia Law

Defendant and co-Defendant participated in a Texas-based conspiracy to burglarize ATMs in Arkansas and Oklahoma, among other states. The district court sentenced Defendant to 36 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release, and $84,626 in restitution. It sentenced co-Defendant to 60 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release, and $84,626 in restitution. In this consolidated appeal, both Defendants challenge the procedural reasonableness of their sentences, Defendant appeals his sentence as substantively unreasonable, and co-Defendant challenges the restitution amount.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The court explained that it was satisfied that the district court considered the Section 3553(a) factors in determining the sentence. Further, the district court explained that Defendant’s single prior burglary conviction didn’t adequately reflect his extensive history of theft, burglary, and participation in organized crimes. Given these considerations, the court did not abuse its discretion.   Regarding co-Defendant’s argument that the district court procedurally erred by including the Oklahoma burglaries in its Guidelines loss amount calculation, the court held the record as a whole supports the district court’s decision to hold him responsible for the conspiracy’s crimes there, regardless of whether he was present when they were committed. Finally, even assuming that the district court erred by using the replacement value instead of the fair market value, that error is not plain. View "United States v. James Miller, Jr." on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of being a felon in possession of ammunition-nine cartridge cases found at the scene of a shooting. The district court1 sentenced Defendant to 120 months’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum sentence, to be served consecutively to any undischarged term of state court sentences Defendant was serving for offenses arising out of the same incident.   He appealed the conviction and sentence, arguing the district court (i) abused its discretion in admitting lay opinion testimony by a detective of the Des Moines Police Department about what the detective saw on convenience store surveillance videos; (ii) erred at sentencing in cross-referencing to the guidelines base offense level for attempted second-degree murder, USSG Section 2A2.1; and (iii) abused its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment convicting and sentencing Defendant to 120 months’ imprisonment. The court held that Rule 701 permits the introduction of lay opinion testimony in just such circumstances. Here, there was no clear error. Defendant intervened in an altercation, firing a gun nine times at close range and striking a victim seven times. Like the conduct in United States v. Comly, this unprovoked attack with a deadly weapon “demonstrated an intent to kill or, at the very least, an act in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to human life.”  Finally, the court concluded that it agrees with the government that the district court did not abuse its “broad discretion to order a consecutive sentence to an undischarged sentence.” View "United States v. Ceeron Williams" on Justia Law

Appellant, who is not an enrolled member of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, pled guilty to one count of wildlife trafficking, in violation of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. Sections 3372(a)(1) and 3373(d)(2) (Count 1), and one count of trespass on Indian land, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1165 (Count 2), for entering the Red Lake Indian Reservation (the Reservation), removing the head of a bear that he had killed two days before, and transporting the bear’s head off the Reservation. The district court sentenced Appellant to 15 months imprisonment and 1 year supervised release.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed concluding that the district court did not commit a procedural error in increasing Appellant’s base offense level pursuant to Section 2Q2.1(b)(1)(B).  The court wrote that assuming arguendo that Section 2Q2.1(b)(1)(B) refers to applicable prior violations, when considering both the offense and relevant conduct, Appellant has committed a pattern of prior violations similar to the instant Lacey Act violation. The court explained Appellant violated Section 1165 when he entered the Reservation for the purpose of hunting a bear, and he again violated Section 1165 when he entered the Reservation on September 3rd to remove the bear’s head from the Reservation. The court, therefore, concluded Appellant’s repeated violation of Section 1165 demonstrates a “pattern of similar violations” sufficient to warrant application of Section 2Q2.1(b)(1)(B). View "United States v. Brett James Stimac" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant's pre-sentence report indicated he had committed three violent felonies: a 2004 conviction for burglary; a 2006 conviction for battery; and a 2006 conviction for battery and possession of a firearm. Both 2006 offenses occurred on the same date. At sentencing, the district court found that Defendant was an armed career criminal and sentenced him to 180 months incarceration, the statutory maximum.Defendant appealed, arguing that because both 2006 convictions occurred on the same date, they should be considered a single predicate offense under the ACCA.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence. After considering (1) the time lapse between offenses, (2) the physical distance between their occurrence, and (3) their lack of overall substantive continuity, the court concluded that, for the purposes of the ACCA, the offenses were not committed on the "same occasion." View "United States v. Christopher Stowell" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). He appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, two additional evidentiary rulings, and the application of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(a)(3).   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court first concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest Richardson because the totality of the circumstances at the time of the arrest was sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that Defendant committed the offense of indecent exposure.   Further, the court concluded that the officers properly searched Defendant’s person and his car after he was arrested. The search of Defendant’s person was a proper search incident to arrest. The search of the CR-V was a proper probationary search because Defendant was subject to a probationary search condition and there was reasonable suspicion to believe that he possessed firearms based on the pistol magazine found in his pocket or that he violated the law by committing the offense of indecent exposure, both of which were prohibited by his probation conditions.   Moreover, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the Government to introduce evidence about Defendant’s six prior convictions. Contrary to Defendant’s claim, the probative value of the evidence of his prior convictions was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Finally, the court explained it need not decide whether North Dakota robbery qualifies as a crime of violence because any alleged error was harmless. View "United States v. LaSamuel Richardson, III" on Justia Law

Defendant and the government reached a binding plea agreement whereby Defendant would plead guilty to transportation of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2423(a) and receive a below-guideline sentence of 150 months. At a change-of-plea hearing in March, the district court rejected the plea agreement. At the end of the second hearing, the district court accepted Defendant’s guilty plea. The district court imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.   Defendant appealed arguing that the district court participated in plea negotiations in violation of Rule 11(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, requiring vacatur of his conviction and sentence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order.   The court explained that Defendant waived “all rights to appeal or collaterally attack . . . [his] conviction or sentence [and] all non-jurisdictional issues.” Because Defendant’s appeal requests vacatur of his conviction and sentence, it falls within the scope of the waiver. However, a violation of Rule 11(c)(1) is appealable unless the defendant specifically waives “an appeal challenging the voluntariness of his plea.” Here, Defendant did not waive his right to appeal, thus the court wrote that Defendant must show that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. The court explained that although at least one factor favors Defendant, the particular facts and circumstances in the entire record here do not show that the Rule 11 violation affected Defendant’s substantial rights. View "United States v. Douglas Schneider" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexually abusing an incapacitated individual in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2242(2)(B). Defendant appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress certain statements made to law enforcement and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the finding that the district court properly denied Defendant’s suppression motion. The court concluded that considering the Griffin factors together in light of the totality of the circumstances, Defendant was not in custody during his interviews with the Agents. Here, Defendant retained freedom of movement throughout the interviews: the agents did not handcuff him, the doors remained unlocked, and he entered and exited the front seat of the vehicle on his own. In addition, Defendant voluntarily acquiesced to both interviews. Furthermore, the agents did not employ strong-arm or deceptive tactics but simply were candid with Johnson about the evidence against him.   Moreover, the court held that the district court properly denied Defendant’s judgment of acquittal. The court explained that a defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence only if “no reasonable jury could have found [him] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Further, only in extreme circumstances, such as when the witness testified to facts that are physically impossible, will a court disturb the factfinder’s decision to credit one witness’s testimony over another’s. The court wrote that no such extreme circumstances were present in Defendant’s case. View "United States v. Michael Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the order of the district court denying his motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(1). On appeal, Defendant argued that the court improperly relied on the fact that he was subject to removal to Mexico and that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider relevant information.   The Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed. The court rejected Defendant’s first contention and explained that it mischaracterizes the district court’s order. Although the probation office cited the removal order as a reason to deny the motion, the court did not adopt that reasoning. Rather, the court explained that (1) Defendant “is no more safe in Mexico than he would be if he continued to be held” in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, and (2) Defendant “is potentially a very dangerous person.” These are permissible considerations under the statute.   Further, the court wrote that Defendant asserted that the district court mistakenly relied on concern that he would present a danger to the public if released, without considering evidence of his more recent good behavior. Defendant presented no prison records in support of his motion, although he did assert that he participated in recidivism reduction programming and “maintained excellent conduct” at his current facility. The court found that the district court permissibly concluded that Defendant’s previous violent conduct weighed against a reduction in sentence despite his assertion of good behavior while incarcerated. View "United States v. Jose Avalos Banderas" on Justia Law

After two separate arrests Defendant was charged with nine conspiracy- and drug-related counts in a 19-count second superseding indictment. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence recovered during these stops. At sentencing, the district court varied downward from the United States Sentencing Guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment and sentenced Defendant to 180 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction on three of the nine counts, and the district court gave an erroneous jury instruction. The government cross-appealed Defendant’s sentence, arguing that the district court procedurally erred when it relied on clearly erroneous facts.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.  Amongst other claims, Defendant argued that the March 12 stop and accompanying pat-down and inventory searches, as well as the November 1 stop, was unconstitutional and that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence recovered pursuant to these illegal stops and searches. The court explained that the detective did not exceed the allowable scope of the pat-down search when he reached into Defendant’s pocket. “Because the ‘sole justification for such a search is the protection of the officer and others, its scope must be confined to a search reasonably designed to discover concealed weapons.”   Further, the court found that the district court did not commit plain error by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury as to some unspecified “heightened showing” required to prove constructive possession. View "United States v. Eric Williams" on Justia Law