FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Criminal

US v. Pepper

Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 8th Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where: 1) this court's prior remand did not require the district court to grant defendant a 40 percent downward departure for substantial assistance as the remand was a general remand for resentencing and did not place any limitations on the discretion of the district court judge in resentencing; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant more than a 20 percent reduction based on defendant's substantial assistance; 3) the court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for a downward variance based on his post-sentencing rehabilitation and the cost of his incarceration; and 4) defendant's sentence was not unreasonable.

US v. Davis

Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 8th Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure) Conviction for firearms possession is affirmed where: 1) the search of defendant's vehicle without a warrant was permissible under the Fourth Amendment as it was lawful search incident to arrest, and thus firearm found in vehicle was admissible; and 2) the court properly ruled that the search was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement as well.

US v. Schmidt

Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 8th Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition is affirmed where: 1) the district court had jurisdiction over the offense as defendant's possession of a firearm manufactured out of country and ammunition manufactured out of state was sufficient to satisfy 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(g)(1)'s required nexus to interstate commerce; and 2) defendant's sentence was not unreasonable.

US v. Lee

Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 8th Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Sentence for aiding and abetting assault with intent to rob a post office is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in overruling defendant's objections to the sentencing enhancements without requiring the government to present any evidence as there was sufficient evidence in the record to support each of the enhancements; and 2) the court did not err in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines sec. 2B3.1(b)(4)(B), as one of his accomplices struck a woman attempting to leave the post office during the robbery, thereby physically restraining the victim.

Roubideaux v. North Dakota Dep't of Corr. and Rehabilitation

Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 8th Cir., Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure) In a sex discrimination action brought by female prison inmates, district court grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the female inmates had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the two challenged gender-explicit statutes; 2) the evidence in the record raises no inference of gender discrimination in the decision-making process because the statutes in question substantially relate to the important government objective of providing adequate segregated housing for female inmates, and any equal protection claim arising out the inmates' previous housing was mooted by their transfer to the Correction and Rehabilitation Center; 3) prison industry assignments were not subject to Title IX as the primary purpose of the program is employment, not education; and 4) the vocational education programs were within the scope of Title IX, and the district court did not err in finding that any differences in the programs offered men and women were a function of the location of the facilities and not gender discrimination.

US v. McGraw

Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Conviction for drug possession is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress and finding that defendant voluntarily consented to the officers' search; and 2) the merits of defendant's challenge to his sentencing classification cannot be reached as defendant's plea agreement included an unambiguous waiver of his right to challenge the district court's sentencing determinations.

Nguyen v. Holder

Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 6th Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Immigration Law) In a petition for review of the BIA's order removing Petitioner from the U.S. for committing a "crime of violence," the petition is granted where the theft of an automobile under the California grand theft statute is not a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. section 16(b).

Harbison v. Little

Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 6th Cir., Civil Rights, Criminal Law & Procedure) In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action challenging Tennessee's lethal injection protocol under the Eighth Amendment, judgment for Plaintiff is vacated where Baze v. Rees, 128 S. Ct. 1520 (2008), addressed the same risks identified by the District Court, but reached the conclusion that they did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

US v. Blake

Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 4th Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure) Defendant's carjacking conviction is affirmed, where the District Court did not err in refusing to suppress his post-arrest statements, because no evidence suggested that the arresting officer's provision of a statement of charges was anything other than an action normally attendant to arrest and custody.

US v. Pearson

Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Remedies, Sentencing) Sentence for for producing, transporting, receiving, and possessing child pornography is vacated and remanded further sentencing proceedings where a restitution order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 2259 may include an amount for estimated future medical expenses, but the district court did not explain adequately its calculation of the restitution amount in the order. The district court's judgment of conviction is affirmed in all other respects.

People v. Nguyen

Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(Cal., Criminal Law & Procedure, Juvenile Law) Court of Appeals judgment is reversed where the absence of a constitutional or statutory right to jury trial under the juvenile law does not, under Apprendi, preclude the use of a prior juvenile adjudication of criminal misconduct to enhance the maximum sentence for a subsequent adult felony offense by the same person under California's Three Strikes law.

People v. Farley

Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(Cal., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Conviction for first degree murder and other crimes and sentence to death is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motions for a change of venue and in its rulings on various challenges to the makeup of the jury; 2) the court did not err in denying several motions to suppress and in its evidentiary rulings, in various instructions it made to the jury, and in denying requested defense instructions; 3) the court did not err denying defendant access to data concerning his past employment and in prohibiting him from introducing evidence on that subject, and did not err in refusing to give proposed instructions on aggravating and mitigating circumstances; and 4) there is no merit to defendant's argument that the death penalty statute violates the United States Constitution.

Bible v. Ryan

Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus) In a capital habeas matter, the denial of Petitioner's petition is affirmed, where Petitioner was not prejudiced by any of his counsel's alleged errors during the sentencing phase of his trial, because there was no reasonable probability that the sentencer would have reached a different result in the absence of the alleged errors.

US v. Cruz-Zuniga

Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 8th Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Conviction for drug crimes is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in using Eighth Circuit Model Jury Instruction 4.05A on the credibility of cooperating witnesses as opposed to defendant's proposed non-pattern instruction on the issue; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion by giving Model Instruction 3.11 on reasonable doubt; 3) the court did not err uin applying a preponderance of the evidence standard to determine the drug quantity attributable to defendant for sentencing purposes; 4) the court's refusal to grant defendant a downward variance for acceptance of responsibility did not wrongfully punish him for exercising his constitutional right to stand trial; and 5) the court properly considered and applied the 18 U.S.C sec. 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not impose an unreasonable sentence.

US v. Balentine

Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 8th Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Remedies) District court order imposing restitution is affirmed where the requirement in 18 U.S.C. sec. 3664(d)(5) that the district court enter a restitution order within 90 days of sentencing does not divest the court of the authority to enter an order if the timing provision is breached, as such an interpretation finds no support in the text of the statute, would contravene the purposes of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act and would reward defendants at the expense of their victims.