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

Petitioner, a Mexican national, pled guilty to illegal entry, a misdemeanor offense. After Petitioner had served his 181-day sentence and was released, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commenced removal proceedings against him. Petitioner conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that his removal would cause exceptional hardship to his three citizen children, especially his ten-year-old autistic son. The immigration judge (IJ) dismissed Petitioner’s application, concluding that Petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(7) precludes an alien from establishing good moral character when his offense resulted in 180 days or more of confinement. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding that the applicability of section 1101(f)(&) does not depend upon the type of offense, but rather, the length of incarceration. The Fourth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) this was not one of those “exceptionally rare” instances in which the literal application of a Congressional enactment produces truly absurd results; and (2) the Court lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim that he was not precluded from establishing good moral character. View "Tiscareno-Garcia v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2009, Appellant pleaded no contest in a state court to carnal knowledge and soliciting the production of child pornography. Appellant later filed an amended pro se habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The state court dismissed Appellant’s petition without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Appellant had not shown deficient performance. After the state Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for appeal, Appellant filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in the federal district court. The court dismissed the petition based on the state court’s reasoning. The Fourth Circuit remanded, holding (1) the district court owed no deference to the state court’s ruling and should have reviewed the state court’s decision de novo; and (2) the district court mistakenly concluded that it had no discretion to grant an evidentiary hearing. Remanded. View "Gordon v. Braxton" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute (PWID) more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. After two sentencing hearings, the district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment on the conspiracy charge and a concurrent term of 480 months’ imprisonment on the PWID charge. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred by failing to make the necessary factual findings to support its drug-quantity calculations. The Fourth Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the factual findings underlying the district court’s drug quantity calculations were inadequate. View "United States v. Flores-Alvarado" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, appealed the denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging a magistrate judge's certification of extraditability. The magistrate judge found that petitioner was subject to extradition under a treaty between the United States and Bosnia and Herzegovina based on war crimes he allegedly committed during the conflict in former Yugoslavia. The court applied the indefinite limitations period from the United States Torture Act, 18 U.S.C. 2340A, that was in place at the time of the extradition request and concluded that the request for petitioner's extradition is not time-barred under Article VII of the treaty. Further, the acts of torture allegedly perpetrated by petitioner against civilians preclude application of the political offense exception. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that petitioner's extradition is neither time-barred nor precluded by the political offense exception in the treaty. View "Nezirovic v. Holt" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed his sentence. The district court found that defendant used the firearm in an attempted murder, but defendant disputed that he had the requisite mens rea for attempted murder. Consequently, the district court denied defendant a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. In this case, when defendant denied that his "acts and omissions" included shooting with the intent to kill, he denied relevant conduct attributable to him. Because falsely denying relevant conduct is "inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility," the district court did not err by denying defendant a three-level reduction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Burns" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to knowingly failing to register as a sex offender as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250(a). The indictment alleged that defendant was subject to SORNA's registration requirement because of his prior South Carolina conviction for the common law offense of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. The court concluded that the Denial Order properly applied the "circumstance-specific approach" (the noncategorical approach) in deciding that defendant was subject to SORNA's registration required. However, the district court erred in ruling that defendant's conviction was for a sex offense under U.S.S.G. 5D1.2(b)(2). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Price" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Turkish national, appealed his conviction for violating the marriage fraud statute under 8 U.S.C. 1325(c). Section 1325(c) prohibits entry into a marriage "for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws." Defendant argued that the jury should have been instructed that he could not be convicted unless the jury found that his "sole" purpose in entering into the marriage was to evade the immigration laws. The court held that because defendant's proposed instructions are not correct statements of law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give those instructions to the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Sonmez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that government officials violated their Fourth Amendment rights by entering curtilage in search of marijuana. The curtilage at issue here is a walk-out basement patio area attached to plaintiffs' home. The court concluded that the district court failed to construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs when it accepted defendants' claim that their searches were reasonable because they entered the curtilage only after viewing one of the plaintiffs from a proper vantage point beyond the home's curtilage. In this case, plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics that defendants violated clearly established law under the Fourth Amendment. On remand, the district court should consider whether Heck v. Humphrey is applicable in this case. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Covey v. Assessor of Ohio County" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and subsequently appealed her prison sentence for several violations of her supervised release. Defendant alleged that the district court erred in considering her rehabilitative needs in violation of Tapia v. United States. The court held that the district court did not plainly err when it discussed defendant's need for mental health counseling at sentencing because the district court never suggested that its concern for defendant's mental health was a factor in fixing the length of her twenty-four month sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Lemon" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of five criminal counts related to his involvement with a street gang (MS-13). On appeal, defendant principally challenged the district court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on Count 3 (use of a firearm during a crime of violence causing death to another). The court concluded that the evidence is clearly sufficient to support defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(j) where a jury was presented with substantial evidence from which to find that defendant aided and abetted a murder through the use of a firearm. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by treating his sentence for Count 3 as a mandatory consecutive sentence. The court held that the plain language of section 924(j) does not expressly answer the question of whether any term of imprisonment imposed thereunder must be consecutive. However, the language itself suggests that such a sentence must be consecutive, and to read section 924(j) otherwise would create an absurd result. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Bran" on Justia Law