Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/02] US v. Beale
Defendants' convictions for conspiracy to prevent by intimidation a judicial officer from discharging her official duties, and obstruction of justice, are affirmed where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of conspiracy to prevent by force, intimidation or threat, an officer of the U.S. from discharging her duties; 2) the First Amendment did not bar defendants' convictions because the conduct underlying the convictions was an unprotected true threat; and 3) the jury was advised more than once about the protections afforded by the First Amendment.

[09/02] US v. Holmes
Defendant's convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and for possessing with intent to distribute in excess of five grams of crack cocaine, are affirmed in part where the evidence was sufficient to overcome a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support defendant's conviction on the felon-in-possession charge. However, the convictions are reversed in part where neither defendant nor his attorney on his behalf made a clear and intentional waiver of defendant's rights to confrontation that would allow the full extent of the confidential informant's statements read by an officer.

[09/02] US v. Ritchie Special Cred. Invs., Ltd.
In intervenor's application to intervene in an adversary proceeding initiated by the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1345 against the alleged author of a Ponzi scheme, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the litigation progressed substantially between the initiation of these proceedings and intervenor's second motion to intervene; and 2) intervenor had knowledge of all the facts surrounding the district court's injunction, and failed to take issue with it when first presented with an opportunity to do so.

[09/01] US v. Wilson
Defendant's convictions for conspiring to distribute marijuana and cocaine, and for possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it, are affirmed in part where: 1) the shooting as to which the district court admitted evidence was similar to the drug-trafficking charged in this case because it stemmed from a dispute over a drug debt; and 2) the probative value of the testimony was not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice. However, the convictions are reversed in part where there was no evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found that defendant knew, on June 9, 2007, that there was cocaine in a cohort's car.

[09/01] US v. Nguyen
Following defendant's conviction for possession with intent to manufacture 1,000 or more marijuana plants and the district court's imposition of an 83-month sentence, followed by four years of supervised release, requiring defendant to submit to a drug test within fifteen days of her release from confinement and periodic drug tests thereafter during the supervised release term, defendant's appeal is dismissed where: 1) defendant's claim that the district court violated Rule 32(i)(1)(A) is weak, and the claim that the court violated the Court Interpreters Act is simply wrong as, in light of defendant's representations, it appears that the absence of translation of the PSI report into Vietnamese had no effect on her substantial rights; and 2) the challenged condition fit the circumstances of the crime, and as such, there was no miscarriage of justice.

[09/01] US v. Ortiz
Defendant's sentence for various firearms and narcotics offenses is affirmed where the sentence did not violate the Ex Post Facto Law clause because defendant’s sentencing range under the unamended Sentencing Guidelines would have been 151 to 188 months, under the amended Guidelines the range would have been 168 to 210 months, and the district court imposed a non-Guidelines sentence of 120 months.

[09/01] US v. Lupton
Conviction of defendant for corrupt solicitation, wire fraud, and making false statements to government officials for seeking kickbacks in connection with a sale and leaseback of a government owned building, is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony; 2) a rational factfinder could readily conclude that defendant had authority to act on behalf of the state and was thus an "agent" as defined in 18 U.S.C. section 666(d)(1); 2) the proposed transaction was not a bona fide transaction; 3) defendant's challenges to his wire fraud conviction are rejected; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that defendant knowingly and willfully made the statements in the course of a matter within the jurisdiction of the U.S. and that the statements were false and material.

[09/01] Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In an action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and two Missouri police officers following an incident involving counterfeit money orders at a Raymore Wal-Mart store, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) given these undisputed facts, probable cause supported plaintiff's warrantless arrest; 2) attorney's fees were proper because plaintiff's continued prosecution of her false arrest claim against the officers in the face of the evidence upon discovery was unquestionably groundless and unreasonable; and 3) the record reflected no evidence of racial animus or hostility toward plaintiff.

[09/01] US v. Allen
Conviction of defendant for drug and firearm related offenses is affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to convict defendant on all counts; 2) there was sufficient evidence to support a denial of a motion of acquittal; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting two prior convictions under Rule 404(b); 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting crack cocaine into evidence; 5) the dashboard video simply does not show that the officer planted the crack cocaine, and there is not basis in the evidence for finding outrageous government conduct; and 6) district court properly admitted the evidence seized during defendant's arrest.

[09/01] People v. Mendez
Juvenile-defendants' convictions as adults for carjacking, assault with a firearm, and multiple counts of second-degree robbery, including criminal street gang and firearm enhancements on each count, and sentences are affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) substantial evidence supports the jury's true findings on the gang allegations; 2) sufficient evidence supported personal use of a firearm; 3) trial court did not err in imposing criminal conviction assessments, but must be corrected to state the correct amount; and 4) defendant's sentence of 84 years to life is remanded as the sentence is the equivalent of life without possibility of parole and is cruel and unusual punishment.

[09/01] Middlebrooks v. Bell
District court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his 1989 conviction for capital murder of a fourteen-year-old is affirmed as the district court correctly determined that defendant's claims are either procedurally defaulted or do not provide a basis for vacating his death sentence under the strictures of AEDPA.

[09/01] US v. Melchor-Meceno
Defendant's sentence for illegally reentering the U.S. is affirmed where, because defendant's prior Colorado felony menacing conviction was categorically a crime of violence (as outlined in U.S.S.G. section 2L1.2), the district court properly applied the enhancement to defendant's sentence.

[09/01] US v. Voice
Defendant's conviction for violating the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is affirmed where: 1) the court rejected the suggestion that a savvy sex offender could move to a different city and avoid having to update his SORNA registration by sleeping in a different shelter or other location every night; 2) the court's ruling on defendant's objection, referring the jury to the jury instructions was sufficient to correct any misstatement of the governing law; and 3) defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the bags he left in an abandoned comfort station on tribal property and, in any event, he abandoned the bags and any privacy interest in them.

[09/01] US v. Aponte
Defendants' convictions for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture are reversed where a reasonable jury must have had reasonable doubt as to defendants' awareness of the drugs inside the cooler in the back of their vehicle.

[08/31] US v. Rainer
Defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm is affirmed where a conviction for violating Alabama's third-degree burglary statute, Ala. Code section 13A-7-7, is a "violent felony" for Armed Career Criminal Act purposes.

Back to Main