Criminal Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine after the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of a residence where defendant was staying. On appeal, defendant argued that the search was unconstitutional because a protective sweep of the residence was not lawful and because the consent of the residence’s owner was sufficiently attenuated from the protective sweep. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the officers exceeded the scope of the protective sweep when they lifted the mattress of a bed during the search. (JACKSON-AKIWUMI and MALDONADO, concurring)

Defendants were charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm by a felon. One defendant pleaded guilty to all charges and the second defendant was convicted on all counts by a jury. In a consolidated appeal, the defendants challenged the propriety of a search warrant for their apartment. The defendant convicted by a jury also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no errors. (SYKES and SCUDDER, concurring)

Defendant was indicted by a grand jury for possessing a firearm as an illegal alien in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). The issue on appeal was whether the federal law complied with the Second Amendment. The Seventh Circuit found that it did, explaining that the government bears the “substantial” burden of proving that a law limiting the rights set forth in the Second Amendment and that it had carried that burden. The Seventh Circuit reversed a contrary ruling by the district court that held the statute was unconstitutional. (ROVNER and ST. EVE, concurring)

Defendant pleaded guilty to multiple federal drug and firearm charges pursuant to a plea agreement. As part of the agreement, the government stipulated that the offense level for all counts was 31; however, the presentence report recommended a final offense level of 33 and the district court adopted the PSR’s recommendation. Defendant appealed, arguing that he entered his guilty plea unknowingly because counsel failed to inform him that it included a waiver of his right to appeal an adverse ruling of a § 3582(c)(2) motion, that the trial court did not properly explain the impact the PSR had on sentencing, and that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to object to the PSR’s proposed final offense level of 33. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding defendant’s arguments to be unpersuasive and noting that defendant faced a high hurdle to establish that the outcome of sentencing would have been different where the district court imposed a below-guidelines sentence. (HAMILTON and MALDONADO, concurring)