Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Under private parties to provide technical assistance to law enforcement to aid in the execution of arrest warrants. Here, a journalist and associate editor at Forbes (“Petitioners”) filed petitions in the Northern District of California and the Western District of Washington seeking to unseal past All Writs Act (“AWA”) orders issued to an online travel-booking technology company related to ongoing criminal investigations in which the United States had obtained arrest warrants but had been thus far unable to make the arrests. The district courts in California and Washington denied Petitioners’ motions.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the two district court orders denying petitions to unseal court records, the panel held that neither the First Amendment nor the common law provides a right of public access to third-party AWA technical assistance materials relating to ongoing criminal investigations involving unexecuted arrest warrants. In determining that the First Amendment’s right of access did not attach, the panel applied the “experience and logic” test set forth in PressEnter. Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 7 (1986), and concluded that it was aware of no historical tradition of public access to proceedings and materials under the AWA to obtain technical assistance from third parties in executing arrest warrants.   Further, the court explained, given the similarities cross-cutting AWA third-party technical assistance proceedings, grand jury proceedings, and preindictment search warrant materials, as a matter of analogical reasoning, the materials Petitioners sought here were not within the common law right of access. View "FORBES MEDIA LLC, ET AL V. USA" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiring to distribute controlled substances within the Los Angeles County Jail (LACJ) system. At sentencing, the district court granted Defendant safety-valve relief from the mandatory minimum of five years imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(f). The government appealed, arguing Defendant was ineligible for safety-valve relief because he never proffered what he knew to prosecutors as required by Section 3553(f)(5).   The Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. The panel held that the district court erred by failing to make the requisite finding to support its application of the safety valve. Section 3553(f) requires the district court to make specific findings “at sentencing,” including that “the defendant has truthfully” proffered before it can apply the safety valve. The district court made no such finding here. The panel wrote that even if it could indulge Defendant’s request to assume that the district court implicitly found that his plea agreement constituted a sufficient proffer considering the government’s independent knowledge of the offense, Defendant’s plea agreement alone could not, on this record, have satisfied the proffer requirement. View "USA V. MARTIN SALAZAR" on Justia Law

Police stopped Defendant for a traffic violation, which led to the discovery of a firearm that Defendant, a convicted felon, could not lawfully possess.   The Ninth Circuit held that the officers did not unreasonably prolong the stop and that Defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his car. The court, therefore, affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress. But, on one aspect of Defendant’s supervised release, the court remanded for the district court to conform its written judgment to the court’s oral pronouncement of Defendant’s sentence.   The court wrote that an officer’s asking Defendant two questions about weapons early in the counter—once before the officer learned that Defendant was on federal supervision for being a felon in possession and once after—was a negligibly burdensome precaution that the officer could reasonably take in the name of safety. Further, the officers’ subjective motivations are irrelevant because the Fourth Amendment’s concern with reasonableness allows certain actions to be taken in certain circumstances, whatever the subjective intent. A criminal history check and the officers’ other actions while Defendant was outside the car were within the lawful scope of the traffic stop.   As to whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they searched Defendant’s car, the panel held that the district court did not err in finding that Defendant unequivocally and specifically consented to a search of the car for firearms. The panel remanded for the district court to conform the written judgment to its oral pronouncement of conditions concerning outpatient substance abuse treatment and vocational services programs. View "USA V. XZAVIONE TAYLOR" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of felonious assault on a peace officer under section 2903.13(A) of the Ohio Revised Code and misdemeanor resisting arrest. While Defendant was in prison, he was served with a “Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order.” The notice alleged that Defendant was a Mexican citizen in the country illegally who had been convicted of an aggravated felony and was thus removable. The notice alleged that his conviction qualified as an aggravated felony because it was a crime of violence under the INA. Defendant was once again arrested and charged with illegal reentry. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his section 2903.13(A) assault conviction was not an aggravated felony. The district court denied Defendant’s motion.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel disagreed with Defendant’s contention that knowledge is not sufficient for “attempted use” because common law attempt requires specific intent. Defendant also argued that his prior offense is not a crime of violence because section 2903.13(A) does not require “violent” physical force but can be violated by offensive or de minimis contact. The panel explained that the text of section 2903.13(A) only criminalizes force capable of causing physical pain or injury and held that the type of conduct to which section 2903.13(A) has been applied by Ohio courts is force capable of causing physical pain or injury. The panel, therefore, concluded that section 2903.13(a) is a crime of violence under Section 16(a), it thus qualifies as an aggravated felony under Section 1101(a)(43)(F), and Defendant’s removal order was not fundamentally unfair. View "USA V. JACINTO ALVAREZ" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 188-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment for violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 841 and 846 pursuant to a plea agreement. He contends that the U.S. Attorney implicitly breached the plea agreement by providing the court, both in its sentencing memorandum and its argument at sentencing, with inflammatory argument and information not relevant to the sentencing determination that could have had but one effect—to increase his sentence beyond the low-end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range. Defendant argued that, by doing so, the government failed to meaningfully abide by its promise in the plea agreement not to recommend a sentence in excess of the low-end of the guidelines range.   The Ninth Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge. The panel held that the government implicitly breached the plea agreement, a breach that amounted to plain error. The panel wrote that, at sentencing, the government never once stated affirmatively that it recommended a 151-month sentence or a sentence at the low-end of the calculated guidelines range. The panel rejected the government’s contention that references to damage and danger to society, the community and its families, Defendant’s prior criminal contacts, his high level of culpability, citation to a 30-year-old decision approving life without parole for a minor drug transaction, introduction of the dissension in the U.S. Attorney's Office over the low-end sentence, or its emphasis on the distribution of "massive, massive drug quantities over multiple, multiple years" were made to support the low-end guideline sentence for which the government promised to advocate. View "USA V. GERARDO FARIAS-CONTRERAS" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 2018 convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Relying on the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), Defendant argued that his convictions should be overturned due to the district court’s failure to instruct the jury that the government “must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm,” which he argued was plain error.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s 2018 convictions. The panel wrote that it was undisputed that the district court’s failure to instruct on the Rehaif knowledge element was error and that the error was plain. The panel held, however, that Defendant cannot show that this error affected his substantial rights. In so holding, the panel did not need to reach whether being convicted as a juvenile or having been incarcerated for more than a year as a result of a juvenile conviction satisfies the Rehaif mens rea requirement. The panel held that Defendant’s two DUI convictions unambiguously demonstrate that there is no reasonable probability that a jury would find that Defendant did not know he had been convicted of a crime punishable by a year or more in prison at the time he possessed the firearm. The panel wrote that additional record evidence further demonstrates that Defendant clearly understood that he belonged to the category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. View "USA V. RYAN MICHELL" on Justia Law

In 1981, while serving two life sentences for multiple convictions for first-degree murder, Defendant beat a fellow inmate to death. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced to death in Idaho state court. Defendant obtained federal habeas relief with respect to his sentence and was resentenced to death in 1995. In a second petition, Defendant thereafter unsuccessfully sought federal habeas relief in the district court. The district court granted certificates of appealability (COAs) to two issues.   The Ninth Circuit filed (1) an order (a) amending and replacing an opinion filed July 20, 2022, (b) denying a petition for panel rehearing, and (c) denying on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc; and (2) an amended opinion affirming the district court’s denial of Defendant’s second amended habeas corpus petition challenging his death sentence. The panel agreed with the district court that the Idaho Supreme Court reasonably found a lack of prejudice under the second prong of Strickland. The panel held further that under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(e)(2), the district court was correct in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on the new evidence that Defendant sought to introduce to bolster his IAC resentencing claim.   The panel wrote that even in the absence of Ramirez, it would have agreed with the district court because the new evidence introduced on federal habeas review in support of Defendant’s argument that he suffers from brain damage and an organic brain disorder was largely duplicative of evidence that had been introduced during his 1982 sentencing and his 1995 resentencing. View "THOMAS CREECH V. TIM RICHARDSON" on Justia Law

Defendant who was not a SNAP beneficiary, was the owner and operator of Laguna Best Restaurant and Catering in Harmon, Guam. From 2015 to 2020, Defendantbought SNAP benefits from various individuals at a substantial discount, and then used those benefits to buy bulk food items for her restaurant. A grand jury indicted Defendant on two counts of the unauthorized use of SNAP benefits and one count of conspiracy to use, transfer, acquire, alter or possess SNAP benefits without authorization. Defendant pled guilty to the conspiracy count. Defendant stipulated to a two-level authentication feature enhancement under U.S.S.G. Section 2B1.1(b)(11)(A)(ii), which was based on her use of EBT cards and PINs to purchase food. The district court sentenced Defendant to ten months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The court also ordered Defendant to pay $18,752.30 in restitution. Defendant appealed.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Considering principally whether the district court properly imposed a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. Section 2B1.1(b)(11)(A)(ii) for Defendant’s misuse of an “authentication feature,” the panel held that a personal identification number associated with a debit-type card is an “authentication feature” under the Sentencing Guidelines and the statutory provisions they reference. The panel held that Defendant did not demonstrate error in the district court’s order requiring her to pay $18,752.30 in restitution, and rejected Defendant’s argument that the government’s breach of the plea agreement constituted plain error. View "USA V. MARITES BARROGO" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his jury convictions for attempted coercion and enticement of a child. Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions because the government failed to show that he attempted to persuade or entice a minor to engage in sexual activity. According to Defendant, the messages reveal that the only issues discussed were the costs of the shows and the specific acts requested.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel wrote that Defendant’s argument conflicts with the trial record, which would permit a reasonable jury to conclude that he attempted to persuade certain minors to perform his abhorrent desires, despite some apparent hesitancy on their part, and that the children’s participation in the live stream was contingent on how much Defendant was willing to pay. The panel noted that, more importantly, Defendant’s argument ignores Section 2422(b)’s focus. The panel wrote that the statute applies whether the minors are real or fictional, and an attempt through an intermediary or an undercover officer still leads to criminal liability. Whether Defendant’s intended victims were “willing” to engage in these acts is ultimately irrelevant— the focus always remains on the defendant’s subjective intent because the statute is designed to protect children from the act of solicitation itself. The panel concluded that, with that focus, the evidence of Defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. View "USA V. FRANKLIN ELLER, JR." on Justia Law

The question presented in this case is whether Appellants, a cannabis entrepreneur and two cannabis businesses, have standing to bring claims arising pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), based on alleged harms to their cannabis business and related property. The district court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that Appellants lacked standing to bring their RICO claims. The court also dismissed Appellants’ Lanham Act claims on standing grounds as well as their state law claims, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Appellants appealed the district court’s order only as to their RICO claims.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The panel held that while Appellants had Article III standing, they lacked statutory standing under RICO. As to Article III standing, the panel held that Appellants satisfied the injury requirement, which requires a showing of an invasion of a legally protected interest because cannabis-related property interests are recognized under California law. Appellees argued that Appellants’ alleged injuries were not redressable because they related to a cannabis business, which was illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. The panel held that the fact that Appellants sought damages for economic harms related to cannabis was not relevant to whether a court could, theoretically, fashion a remedy to redress their injuries. Further, the panel held that Appellants lacked statutory standing to bring their claims under RICO Section 1964(c).  The panel concluded that the statutory purpose of RICO and the congressional intent animating its passage conflicted with the California laws recognizing a business and property interest in cannabis. View "FRANCINE SHULMAN, ET AL V. TODD KAPLAN, ET AL" on Justia Law