Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Barbee sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018. Barbee suffers from Type II diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, and is serving his sentence at a facility that experienced a large outbreak of COVID-19 infections around the time that Barbee filed his motions. He argued that his medical conditions placed him at significant risk of contracting COVID-19 and contended that he had used his time in prison productively, completing a drug abuse program, passing two parts of the GED test, and taking classes. He had one disciplinary incident two years earlier.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Barbee had the burden of establishing extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release and the request must be consistent with the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing considerations. The court noted Barbee’s extensive criminal history, the seriousness of his most recent offense, the relatively small portion of his sentence that he had served, and that Barbee had received two doses of the Moderna vaccine. Although Barbee argued that he remains at risk as the COVID-19 situation continues to evolve, he did not present any evidence establishing that he is more at risk for an adverse outcome in prison than he would be if released. View "United States v. Barbee" on Justia Law

In 2012, Brown pled guilty in the Eastern District of Missouri to unlawfully possessing a firearm and admitted to eight prior state law felony convictions, leading to an enhanced, 262-month sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). After unsuccessfully seeking habeas relief in the Eighth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. 2255, Brown used 28 U.S.C. 2241 to file a habeas petition in the Seventh Circuit, where he was then confined, contending that Supreme Court precedent leaves him without the three predicate offenses necessary to sustain his ACCA-enhanced sentence. Brown cited a Seventh Circuit holding (Davenport) that a federal prisoner may seek section 2241 relief in the circuit of confinement where section 2255’s limits on second or successive motions would deny that prisoner even one opportunity to seek habeas relief based on a newly-issued statutory interpretation decision.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Circuit of conviction law (here, the Eighth Circuit) generally applies to Davenport-based habeas petitions. Eighth Circuit precedent clearly leaves Brown with the three predicate offenses necessary to sustain his ACCA-enhanced sentence. The Eighth Circuit has held that a weapons-exhibiting offense remains a violent felony under section 924(e)’s elements clause, which Supreme Court precedent left untouched. View "Brown v. Krueger" on Justia Law

Kramer was the U.S. open class offshore powerboat champion but he was also a successful drug lord and money launderer who made millions smuggling vast quantities of marijuana in the 1980s. After his arrest, he tried to escape prison hanging off the skids of a helicopter. He was convicted in Illinois for drug and criminal enterprise offenses and in Florida under RICO; $60 million and $50 million forfeiture judgments were entered against him as part of his sentences.Over a decade later, Kramer asked the district court to find a 2003 settlement agreement invalid and to account for all property seized by the government and return to him the value exceeding $60 million. The Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court order that granted an accounting of the amounts collected on his drug conviction forfeiture judgment, determined that approximately $2 million had been forfeited under the 2003 settlement agreement between the government and certain entities, and credited the settlement amount toward Kramer’s drug conviction forfeiture judgment. “Instead of accepting Kramer’s invitation to wade into a complex multidistrict financial assessment involving numerous parties, governmental offices, settlement agreements, and legal proceedings, the district court sensibly limited the accounting to what was owed and collected” toward the drug forfeiture judgment entered in Illinois. View "United States v. Kramer" on Justia Law

Skaggs was charged with 12 counts related to his production and possession of child pornography, based on evidence found in thumb drives seized from him during a warrantless border search at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The district court denied a motion to suppress, convicted Skaggs of all counts. Believing a life sentence was mandatory because of his prior state conviction for sexual misconduct with a minor, the court sentenced him to life in prison.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. No court has ever required more than reasonable suspicion for a border search An investigation revealed that Skaggs had a prior sexual misconduct conviction; traveled abroad multiple times and was involved with overseas orphanages; posted suggestive pictures on Facebook of himself with young girls; was the director of Ukrainian Angels, whose name appeared to be borrowed from a well-known child pornography website; and was suspected of child sex tourism and traveling to Ukraine to meet minors. Skaggs lied during his customs interview, stating that he had no thumb drives with him. These facts, taken together, give rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The district court said it would have imposed a life sentence in any event and discussed the section 3553(a) factors that supported the sentence, any error was harmless. View "United States v. Skaggs" on Justia Law

Wisconsin inmate Zimmerman filed a First Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Though “far from clear and very abbreviated,” the complaint seemed to contend that Corrections Officer Bornick had it out for him because of grievances Zimmerman had filed concerning Bornick. Zimmerman also seemed to allege that he had received an undeserved warning from Bornick, who also confiscated about $100 worth of Zimmerman’s property and issued a conduct report that led to 16 days of disciplinary confinement.The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1) and determined that Zimmerman failed to state a claim; the complaint did not establish a causal relationship between Bornick’s actions and any protected speech. Deciding that any amendment to the complaint would be futile because Zimmerman’s allegations were thorough, the district court dismissed it with prejudice. The Seventh Circuit vacated. The district court was wrong not to dismiss the complaint but absent a clear indication of futility or some extraordinary circumstance, litigants, including prisoners, should have the opportunity to try again by filing an amended complaint. The district court may have held Zimmerman to a pleading standard beyond that required by the Federal Rules and, regardless, should have given him a second try. View "Zimmerman v. Bornick" on Justia Law

Howell was convicted on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to concurrent 96‐month terms. In 2020, the Seventh Circuit vacated one conviction and remanded. The 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) permits federal courts to conduct by video teleconference some criminal proceedings that otherwise require the defendant’s physical presence in court, including felony resentencing. The court must make certain findings; the defendant must consent after consulting with counsel.At a video conference status hearing attended by Howell, the court stated that it needed Howell’s consent to issue a CARES Act order for sentencing by video teleconference. The court delayed the resentencing to allow Howell’s counsel to confer with him. The court issued a CARES Act order saying that “Howell moved to proceed with a video‐conference resentencing,” and made the necessary findings. There is no record of that motion. During the hearing, Howell’s counsel acknowledged that she had had the opportunity to speak with Howell about the hearing. Neither Howell nor his counsel objected to the video teleconference hearing. The judge reimposed a 96‐month prison term. Howell had already served 96 months' imprisonment.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The record sufficiently indicated that Howell was informed his consent was required; that he conferred with his counsel; and that the judge, lawyers, and Howell proceeded with the understanding that Howell had consented to the video teleconference. View "United States v. Howell" on Justia Law

Sanders, a severely mentally ill inmate, has been in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction since 2004. For eight years, he was in solitary confinement, where his mental health deteriorated. Sanders has attempted suicide and engaged in self-harm multiple times. He claims that self-mutilation was a pre-condition for solitary confinement inmates to speak with a mental health person. Sanders filed suit and applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), which allows indigent prisoners to bring suits without prepaying the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner who has three strikes—actions or appeals dismissed for being “frivolous, malicious, or fail[ing] to state a claim”—can only proceed without prepayment if he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Sanders cited the “imminent danger exception.”The district court initially granted his IFP application but later revoked its grant, finding that none of Sanders’s allegations demonstrated that he was in imminent danger. The Seventh Circuit reinstated his IFP status. Sanders adequately alleged his belief that certain practices at the Pontiac Correctional Center would lead him to self-harm. The district court erroneously determined that the allegations were fraudulent and did so without explicitly considering whether lesser sanctions would be appropriate. View "Sanders v. Melvin" on Justia Law

In 2004, Johnson was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Based on his prior convictions, the district court found that he qualified for a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and sentenced him to 275 months in prison. The 2015 Supreme Court “Johnson “ decision held that the so‐called “residual clause” of the ACCA was unconstitutionally vague. In 2016, Johnson moved under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate his sentence on the grounds that it was based on the ACCA’s now‐defunct residual clause.The district court denied his motion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Despite the Supreme Court’s holding, Johnson’s sentence is proper if he has at least three prior convictions that qualify for enhancement under the provisions of the ACCA which that decision left undisturbed: the “violent felony” and “serious drug offense” provisions. Johnson does have at least three such convictions. He did not challenge that his prior drug and burglary convictions qualified as ACCA predicates; Indiana’s criminal deviate conduct offense is divisible and that the forcible compulsion variety of that offense requires sufficient force and intent to qualify as a “violent felony” under the ACCA. The court did not address an escape conviction. View "Johnson v. United States" on Justia Law

Gooch alleged that correctional officers Young and Wilson falsely informed another inmate that Gooch had stolen from him and directed the inmate to “take action”; the inmate then attacked Gooch with a weapon. When Gooch defended himself, Wilson intervened and instructed Gooch to lie on the floor, where the inmate attacked him again. Gooch asked his correctional counselor for the form on which to file a grievance against the officers. Gooch asserts that his counselor refused to give him the form, stating “you better watch out snitching on staff.” Over the next two days, “multiple guards” walked by his cell, calling him a “rat” and making threats.Three days later, Gooch filed a “Bivens action,” which was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). The Seventh Circuit vacated. Exhaustion is not required when the responsible prison officials refuse to give a prisoner the necessary grievance form or thwart a prisoner from filing a grievance through threats or intimidation. Gooch attested that he feared for his life if he continued with the administrative-remedy process. The government did not contest his assertion and failed to meet its burden of showing that remedies were “available” to Gooch. View "Gooch v. Young" on Justia Law

A felony defendant normally must be present in the courtroom at sentencing. FED. R. CRIM. P. 43(a)(3). The 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), 134 Stat. 281, permits district courts to conduct felony plea and sentencing proceedings by videoconference if the defendant consents and the judge finds “for specific reasons” that the sentencing “cannot be further delayed without serious harm to the interests of justice,” In March 2020, just before the CARES Act was adopted, Coffin pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. Sentencing was postponed several times.Coffin eventually consented to a sentencing hearing by videoconference under the Act. The district judge confirmed Coffin’s consent on the record and found that further delay would seriously harm the interests of justice, noting several reasons why that was so. The judge asked if there were any objections to his findings. Coffin’s attorney said, “No, thank you.” The judge imposed 60-month concurrent sentences. The Seventh Circuit rejected Coffin’s challenges to the judge’s CARES Act findings as “far too late.” He expressly consented to the videoconference sentencing and confirmed that he had no objection to the judge’s findings under the Act. “That’s a waiver.” View "United States v. Coffin" on Justia Law