Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for four counts of mail fraud, three counts of making false statements, and two counts of money laundering. In relevant part, a jury found defendant guilty of mailing U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) several forms, which falsely claimed large business expenditures from 2005 to 2007, as part of a scheme to acquire federal government subsidies under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Act of 2000 (CDSOA).The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court erred by asking defendant if he wanted to waive his right to testify. Rather, the court concluded that the district court did not err in requesting an on-the-record waiver of defendant's right to testify. The court explained that nothing in the framing of the two neutral, straight-forward questions by the district court undermined defendant's right to testify or improperly intruded into the attorney-client relationship by suggesting the district court's contrary leaning as to what defendant should decide.The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give defendant's requested jury instructions on the CDSOA because the absence of the CDSOA instruction in no way impaired the defense. The court declined to reverse defendant's conviction based on the district court's alleged Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30(b) violation when it revised the mail-fraud jury instruction to correct a statement of the law or its refusal to give a curative instruction. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in giving a modified Allen charge similar to the pattern instruction. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's 62-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. The court upheld the district court's application of a firearms enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(1). In this case, the government has met its burden by producing evidence that the rifle was present at the site of the drug possession charge. Furthermore, defendant failed to meet his burden to negate the nexus presented by the government. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court's factual findings related to the firearms enhancement were not clearly erroneous, and the district court did not err in applying the enhancement. View "United States v. Montenegro" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that a certificate of appealability is required when a federal prisoner obtains relief through a postconviction motion, 28 U.S.C. 2255, and appeals the decision to correct only the illegal sentence instead of performing a full resentencing. In this case, because defendant does not have a certificate of appealability, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider his argument that the district court erred by correcting his sentence instead of performing a full resentencing. Accordingly, the court granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jursidiction. View "United States v. Cody" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of bribery under 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2) and other charges related to their involvement in concealing payments to Alabama Representative Oliver Robinson, through his charitable foundation in exchange for "advocacy" and "community outreach" intended to undermine the EPA's efforts to clean up a Superfund site. Defendants argued that the convictions should be overturned because no reasonable jury could find that the Representative committed an "official act," an element required for bribery under 18 U.S.C. 201.The Eleventh Circuit has previously held in United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010), that section 666 has no "official act" requirement and is distinguishable from section 201. Consistent with its sister circuits, the court held that McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016), does not disturb the court's holding in McNair and the court did not read into section 666 limitations unsupported by the language. In this case, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of bribery under section 666(a)(2) where defendants each acted with a corrupt state of mind; Representative Robinson was an agent of Alabama; and defendants intended Representative Robinson to act "in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions" of the Alabama government. The court also rejected defendants' claims of error regarding the jury instructions. Finally, the court concluded that the district court's decisions not to sever the cases for trial or subsequent grant of a mistrial were not abuses of discretion. The court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Roberson" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release. Defendant contends that his conditions of hypertension, latent tuberculosis, and obesity, create a high risk he will fall seriously ill or die should he contract COVID-19 in the midst of the unprecedented global pandemic. The court concluded that the district court failed to demonstrate that it considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in denying relief. In this case, the district court's order includes nothing to suggest it considered, balanced, or weighed any of the factors supporting the grant of defendant's motion. Accordingly, the court remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "United States v. Cook" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349; and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343. Defendants' convictions stemmed from three public housing repair contracts that their construction company procured following successful bids to the county. The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that defendants intentionally participated in a scheme to defraud to constitute wire fraud, and knowingly and voluntarily engaged in a conspiracy to commit wire fraud. View "United States v. Estepa" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of an electronic search condition on defendant's conditions of supervised release and affirmed his above-guideline 30-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the special condition where, although the electronic search condition did not relate directly to defendant's firearm offense, it was reasonably related to his history as a recidivist and the statutory goals of deterring him from future potentially dangerous offenses. Furthermore, defendant was a chronic lawbreaker and the condition was neither vague nor overbroad.The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and placed heavy emphasis on the nature and circumstances of the offense in light of defendant's prior criminal history, promoting respect for the law, and deterring defendant from continued violations of the prohibition against him possessing a gun. In this case, it was defendant's seventh conviction for illegally possessing a gun and defendant received little to no jail time for his previous offenses. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

In 2006, Potts pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute at least 50 grams of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii) and 846. In a consolidated case, Potts pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and distribute at least 50 grams of crack cocaine and at least 5 kilograms of powder cocaine, sections 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii) and 846; and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and 924(e). The court imposed three concurrent 240-month sentences. In 2019, Potts sought a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, 132 Stat. 5194. The district court found Potts was ineligible because he was not sentenced for a “covered offense” and that section 3553(a)'s factors indicate that a sentence reduction is unwarranted. In 2020, while Potts’ appeal was pending, the court granted Potts compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), after analyzing the 3553(a) factors and finding compelling reasons: Potts’ serious medical conditions rendered him uniquely vulnerable to COVID-19. The court imposed an additional 37-month supervised release term—the unserved portion of his original prison sentence—to be served on “home confinement” before serving his original, concurrent supervised release terms.The Eleventh Circuit then affirmed the denial of his 2019 motion. The 2020 motion rendered the issue moot with respect to his incarceration but not with respect to supervised release. The court’s refusal to reduce Potts’ supervised release terms was not an abuse of its discretion. View "United States v. Potts" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempted enticement of a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity and traveling across a state line with the intent to engage in sexual activity with a person under the age of 12 years.The court concluded that there was no error in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on outrageous conduct grounds; the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress the child pornography on his computers; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence that defendant possessed child pornography, in overruling his objection on Fifth Amendment grounds, or in instructing the jury that it could consider his refusal to answer questions about his possession of child pornography in assessing his credibility; the district court did not abuse its discretion by not permitting one of defendant's expert witnesses to testify before the jury as irrelevant; and defendant's 35 year term of imprisonment was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Castaneda" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's order denying defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. The court agreed with the government that defendant was eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act and that the district court erred in finding otherwise. However, notwithstanding the government's concession, the court must still decide whether the district court, in its alternative holding, abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a sentence reduction.The court held that the First Step Act does not require that the district court consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors when exercising its discretion to reduce a sentence under section 404(b) of the First Step Act. The court explained that the district court's alternative ruling denying defendant's request to reduce or terminate his term of supervised release failed to provide a sufficient explanation to allow for meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Stevens" on Justia Law