Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and 15 year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm based on the district court's finding that he was a career criminal. The court concluded that defendant's prior drug convictions under Virginia Code 18.2-248 qualified as serious drug offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The court also concluded that there was no clear error in crediting the testimonies of law enforcement officers and thus in denying defendant's motion to suppress. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's remaining claims of error are foreclosed by Supreme Court and Circuit precedent. View "United States v. Stancil" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for knowingly possessing with intent to distribute a Schedule II controlled substance (approximately 2 kilograms of cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and conspiring to distribute a Schedule II controlled substance (cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846.The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to allow a rational jury to infer that she knew the package contained a controlled substance. The court also concluded that the district court acted within its discretion by admitting text messages showing that defendant illegally sold prescription pills and by instructing the jury on a deliberate ignorance theory. The court explained that the district court admitted evidence of defendant's prior drug deals to show that her involvement in a different drug-related crime was not a mistake, and any error in instructing the jury on a deliberate ignorance theory was harmless because the jury heard sufficient evidence of actual knowledge. View "United States v. Colston" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for crimes related to sexual misconduct with a minor. For two months, defendant, who was 33 years old, pretended to be a 17 or 18 year old girl as he communicated online with a 14 year old boy. Defendant sent sexually explicit videos of women to the boy and requested sexually explicit videos of him in return. Defendant was convicted for charges that he: (1) did knowingly and intentionally use, persuade, induce, and entice a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and (e); (2) did knowingly receive, and attempt to receive, material containing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2) and (b)(1); and (3) did knowingly possess, and attempt to possess, material containing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2).The court concluded that neither section 2251(a) nor the indictment required the government to prove that defendant knew the victim's age in order to convict on Count I. Because the jury instruction was both a correct statement of the law and a correct statement of the charge, the district court did not constructively amend his indictment. However, the district court erred in convicting defendant of both possession and receipt of child pornography because a defendant cannot be punished twice for the same crime. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction for Count I and II, vacated his conviction on Count III, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant contends that his indictment was defective for two reasons: it failed to charge a complete criminal offense and it did not inform him that he needed to know his status as a convicted felon.The court rejected defendant's Rehaif-based contentions and held that the indictment did enough to charge an offense against the United States where 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is by itself a criminal offense. The court also held that an indictment that does not clearly set out the knowledge element does not warrant an automatic presumption of prejudice to the defendant. The court explained that this kind of error is not the sort of structural infirmity that infects the entire trial, and thus the court reviewed it using the same harmless-error inquiry that applies to most other types of errors, including constitutional ones. In this case, any potential error in the indictment was harmless to defendant. Furthermore, the court found no other errors in the conviction or sentence regarding the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reopen, the veracity of the search warrant affidavit, any alleged cumulative error, and defendant's sentence as an armed career criminal. View "United States v. Leonard" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's 57-month sentence for making false statements to a firearms dealer. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(a)(3), for an offense involving a semiautomatic firearm that is capable of accepting a large capacity magazine. In this case, the court found no basis in the record on which to overturn the district court's factual findings regarding the close proximity of a large capacity magazine to the rifle defendant attempted to purchase, nor in its legal conclusion that the offense conduct met the standard for the Guidelines enhancement. Furthermore, the application of the large-capacity magazine enhancement in this context—the attempted purchase of a semiautomatic rifle by an individual subject to a restraining order—furthers the policy rationale behind section 2K2.1 of punishing firearm crimes involving "dangerous types of weapons." Finally, the court upheld the district court's determination that defendant's prior conviction for Florida felony battery constitutes a crime of violence. View "United States v. Matthews" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, challenging his sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Petitioner contends that two of the four convictions underlying the ACCA enhancement can no longer support it after the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015).The court concluded that, at best for petitioner, it is unclear from the record whether the sentencing court relied on the residual clause or the elements clause or the enumerated offenses clause, or all three of them, when it found that his 1978 California conviction for robbery with a firearm was a violent felony under the ACCA. The court explained that, when it is unclear what role, if any, the residual clause played, the movant loses because if the evidence is silent or in equipoise, then the party with the burden fails. The court need not determine whether the 1982 California robbery conviction also qualifies as a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA because petitioner has three underlying convictions supporting the ACCA enhancement. View "Pitts v. United States" on Justia Law

The government moved to compel the testimony of an attorney who worked for the corporate body running the campaign for a former candidate for public office. The attorney sought to invoke the attorney-client privilege over his communications with the candidate and the campaign regarding the subject of the subpoena—certain financial disclosure forms filled out by the campaign and a number of purchases paid for by the campaign's bank accounts. The district court granted in part the government's motion to compel and denied the campaign's motion to quash.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that the communications at issue fall within the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. In this case, the court concluded that the government has presented a prima facie case of wire fraud and that the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in finding that the government satisfied its burden under the first prong of the crime-fraud exception. Furthermore, after making the personal expenditures at issue, but before filing his financial disclosure forms, the candidate sought or obtained legal advice from the attorney regarding his obligations under Georgia law. Therefore, the communications at issue are sufficiently in furtherance of the crime of wire fraud to justify the piercing of the privilege. View "In re: Grand Jury Subpoena" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that her former employer violated the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) by discriminating against her because of her association with her son, who suffers from severe asthma. The district court dismissed plaintiff's associational discrimination claim and granted summary judgment to the employer on plaintiff's remaining claims under the FCRA and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).The Eleventh Circuit held, in light of the statute's plain language, that the FCRA does not support an associational-discrimination claim and no Florida court has concluded otherwise. The court also held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on plaintiff's claim for FCRA retaliation where she failed to show that any of the relevant decisionmakers knew of her protected activity or that other employees engineered her termination by manipulating the relevant decisionmakers; FMLA retaliation where plaintiff failed to show that the employer's reasons for taking adverse action were pretextual; and FMLA interference where she did not establish that she was entitled to FMLA leave. View "Matamoros v. Broward Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted the motion for panel rehearing, vacated its earlier opinion, and substituted in its place the following opinion.The court affirmed defendant's 108 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a charge of felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant alleged that the district court erred by imposing a term of imprisonment that was simply too long under the circumstances and by failing to adjust his sentence under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual 5G1.3(b)(1) for time served on an undischarged term of state imprisonment.The court rejected defendant's challenges, concluding that the Sentencing Guidelines, though they are the starting point for all federal sentencing decisions, are no longer mandatory in whole, or even in part. The court explained that the district court needed to consider section 5G1.3(b)(1) when determining defendant's initial Guidelines recommendation, but after that was free to exercise its discretion to impose the sentence that seemed most appropriate. Furthermore, the choice the district court made here was reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, any error in how the district court considered section 5G1.3(b)(1) was harmless and the final sentence it chose was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

These appeals involve several issues related to the convictions of four drug smugglers under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. Defendants were caught by the Coast Guard off the coast of the Dominican Republic and 180 kilograms of cocaine were discovered. Defendants were convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute and to possess cocaine with intent to distribute.The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the United States had jurisdiction over defendants' stateless vessel. Furthermore, no evidentiary hearing was required for that ruling, and any error in delaying it was harmless. The court also concluded that sufficient evidence supported defendants' convictions because their indictments did not obligate the government to prove that they knew the identity of the controlled substance they carried. Finally, the district court afforded them a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendants' convictions. View "United States v. Nunez" on Justia Law