Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a North Carolina registered lobbyist, commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the North Carolina State Board of elections to challenge the constitutionality of North Carolina's "Campaign Contributions Prohibition," N.C. Gen. Stat. 163-278.13C, which prohibited any registered lobbyist from contributing to the campaign of any candidate for the North Carolina General Assembly or the Council of State. Applying the "closely drawn" standard of scrutiny that the court concluded was applicable to such contribution restrictions, the court held that the statute was constitutional, both facially and as applied to plaintiff, as a valid exercise of North Carolina's legislative prerogative to address potential corruption and the appearance of corruption in the State.

Defendant, a former Sheriff of Buncombe County, was convicted by a jury of numerous conspiracies and other charges relating to his receipt of bribes in connection with the unlawful operation of video poker machines in Buncombe and other North Carolina counties. Defendant appealed his convictions. The court held that even if the district court erred in admitting into evidence the recording of the December 19 meeting at issue, such error was harmless. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to sever. The court further held, under the plain error standard of review, that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conspiracy conviction for "the obtaining of property of another" by conduct and under circumstances proscribed in the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951. The court finally held that the district court did not exhibit unfair treatment or bias toward defendant. The court rejected defendant's argument that the Honest Services Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1346, was unconstitutionally vague and affirmed his convictions for violating the statute.

Defendant challenged his sentence for a drug conspiracy conviction, arguing that the district court erroneously denied his request for new counsel and improperly imposed an obstruction of justice sentencing enhancement. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for new counsel but reversed and remanded the case for resentencing because the district court did not find the necessary factual predicates to impose an obstruction of justice enhancement.