Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendants Goldstein and Bercoon's convictions for charges related to their involvement in a market-manipulation scheme involving shares of MedCareers Group, Inc. (MCGI) and a scheme to defraud investors in Find.com Acquisition, Inc. (Find.com).The court concluded that the magistrate judge did not err in concluding that there was probable cause to support the wiretap affidavit and satisfied the necessity requirement. Furthermore, defendants have not shown that the district court erred in concluding that the wiretap evidence was admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, even assuming there was some deficiency in the necessity or probable cause showing. The court also concluded that, because defendants did not make a substantial preliminary showing that the law enforcement agent deliberately or recklessly omitted material information from his wiretap affidavit, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motions for a Franks hearing; any variance in the indictment did not cause prejudice warranting relief; defendants' claims of prosecutorial misconduct failed; the district court did not err in suppressing Goldstein's statements to an SEC attorney; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Goldstein's request for an evidentiary hearing; the district court did not err in imposing joint and several liability; and the court found no basis to dismiss Bercoon's indictment. View "United States v. Goldstein" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release based on her medical conditions of lupus, scleroderma, hypertension, glaucoma, and past cases of bronchitis and sinus infections, which she argued put her at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19.The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that defendant's medical conditions were not "extraordinary and compelling reasons" to grant compassionate release. Furthermore, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and section 1B1.13 n.1, which further contributes to the court's holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court explained that regardless of whether the district court was required to consider USSG 1B1.13 n.1, it did so. In this case, the district court's order makes clear that it independently considered whether defendant's reasons were "extraordinary and compelling" under section 3582(c)(1)(A), and then separately and "[m]oreover" considered and rejected her reasons in light of section 1B1.13 n.1. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Petitioner claims that since he was restrained without adequate and on-the-record justification by the district court, his trial counsel should have objected and that the failure to object constituted inadequate assistance.The court concluded that, even if Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), could excuse petitioner's procedural default, he has failed to show actual prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and therefore has not presented a "substantial claim" that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. In this case, given the strong evidence of his guilt, there is no reasonable probability that the jury seeing petitioner in shackles affected his conviction. Nor is there any reasonable probability that seeing petitioner in shackles affected the jury's decision to recommend the death penalty. View "Clark v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion when it applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to dismiss plaintiff's action against defendant, the father of her two daughters. In this case, plaintiff left the United States against the orders of a Florida family court and could be arrested by Florida officials if she were to return to Florida. Plaintiff filed suit attacking the proceedings of the family court while remaining outside its jurisdiction.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to dismiss plaintiff's lawsuit. The court explained that because plaintiff remains a fugitive, her lawsuit collaterally attacks the very proceedings from which she absconded, and dismissal prevents her from using the judicial process only when it benefits her. The court denied as moot the motion to dismiss the appeal, the motion to strike part of the reply brief, and the motion to strike the appendix to the reply brief. View "Vibe Ener v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences for conspiring to commit healthcare fraud, conspiring to possess with intent to dispense controlled substances, and seven counts of unlawfully dispensing a controlled substance.The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. The court also held that the district court adequately instructed the jury as to the elements of a criminal conspiracy and that its object was healthcare fraud; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give defendant's requested instruction because it was not a correct statement of the law; and the district court's jury instructions accurately stated the law. In regard to defendant's challenges to his sentences, the court held that the district court did not err in calculating defendant's advisory guidelines range or abuse its discretion in sentencing him; the district court did not clearly err in reaching its loss findings; and the district court's error in sentencing defendant on Count Two did not affect his substantial rights. View "United States v. Abovyan" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for use of a fraudulent immigration document. The court held that defendant's conduct, as charged in the indictment, constitutes a criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. 1546(a); the jury was not misled or confused by the "or employment" language in the district court's instruction; the jury convicted defendant of possessing and using an order of supervision "as evidence of authorized stay" as charged in the indictment; even if defendant's claim was not barred as invited error, he is unable to show prejudice; and neither the government's closing statements nor its statements regarding a police officer amount to prosecutorial misconduct where the government did not improperly bolster the officer's testimony. View "United States v. Contreras Maradiaga" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 motion for habeas relief. Petitioner argued that his attorneys violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence in the sentencing phase of his capital murder trial. The court concluded that the Georgia Supreme Court's determination that petitioner failed to show that the allegedly deficient performance prejudiced him, as required under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was not an unreasonable application of federal law. In this case, it was not unreasonable for the Georgia Supreme Court to conclude that there is no reasonable probability of a different result if petitioner's trial attorneys had collected and presented the mitigating evidence proffered to the state habeas court. View "Lee v. GDCP Warden" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged in a two-count superseding indictment with violating 18 U.S.C 1546(a) by allegedly using a fraudulent order of supervision to obtain a driver's license from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Florida DHSMV). Defendant moved to dismiss the superseding indictment for failing to state an offense under section 1546(a), arguing that the term "authorized stay" means "lawful presence" in the United States and that no federal statute or regulation expressly identifies an order of supervision as "evidence of authorized stay in the United States." The district court dismissed the superseding indictment after concluding that an order of supervision does not qualify as a document "prescribed by statute or regulation . . . as evidence of authorized stay . . . in the United States" as required by section 1546(a).Based on a review of the statutes and regulations, the Eleventh Circuit held that an order of supervision falls within the plain and ordinary meaning of section 1546(a)'s "other document" clause. The court explained that the Form I-220B, Order of Supervision, itself is a document prescribed by the federal immigration statutes and regulations as showing that an alien has legal permission to stay in the United States. Furthermore, separate and apart from the immigration statutes and regulations, an order of supervision is a document prescribed by certain federal entitlement regulations as evidence of legal permission to stay in the United States. The court also held that defendant's proposed statutory interpretations are not supported by section 1546's language and structure. The court explained that "authorize stay" as used in section 1546(a) is not defined by terms of art for immigration laws governing alien admissibility. Furthermore, section 1546(a)'s "other document" provision does not require an order of supervision to be expressly listed or otherwise identified as evidencing authorized stay in the United States. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order dismissing the superseding indictment and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Ardon Chinchilla" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for two counts of producing child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence found on defendant's cell phone. The court also held that defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable where the district court did not err in applying three sentencing enhancements under USSG 2G2.1(b)(5), 2G2.2(b)(5), and 4B1.5(b)(1). Furthermore, defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Isaac" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that, even if the affidavit supporting the search warrant did not establish probable cause to justify the search, suppression of the fruits of the search would be inappropriate under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The court explained that the police here did exactly what the Fourth Amendment required of them: they obtained a warrant in good faith from a neutral magistrate and reasonably relied on it; they had no reason to believe that probable cause was absent despite the magistrate's authorization; there is no evidence in this record that the affidavit supporting the warrant misled the magistrate or that it contained false information; the affidavit was not lacking in indicia of probable cause so as to render the executing officers' belief in its existence unreasonable; and the warrant was not facially deficient because it failed to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized. Finally, the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court lacked lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition charge, because such an omission is not a jurisdictional defect. View "United States v. Antonio Morales" on Justia Law