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

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance (PCP), nine counts of distribution of PCP, and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. (appeal No. 13-14296). In appeal No. 4299, the district court imposed a consecutive sentence of 60 months for violation of supervised release arising from the convictions in No. 13-4296. Defendant appealed from both judgments but abandoned his appeal of the revocation sentence in No. 13-14299. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support each of defendant's convictions, but his sentence was substantively unreasonable where the court failed to see how the life-plus-60-months sentence reasonably reflects the seriousness of the offense or just punishment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for charges related to the intentional burning of a two-unit duplex that he owned and managed and to his recovery of insurance proceeds from the fire. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant for arson-related convictions under 18 U.S.C. 844(i) and for accessory after the fact to arson under 18 U.S.C. 3. The court also concluded that the district court properly concluded that the Van duplex was a "dwelling" under U.S.S.G. 2K1.4. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction after pleading guilty to several charges stemming from an armed robbery. The court concluded that the district court did not err in sentencing him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court concluded that, notwithstanding the Government's concession during oral argument that defendant's sentence would not be different under Alleyne v. United States, the court denied his claim because it falls short within the scope of the valid appeal waiver. Further, the Government presented sufficient evidence to find that the third-degree robbery conviction in fact exists when the district court relied on three appendices which provided consistent accounts of defendant's conviction for third-degree robbery. There is no prohibition on secondary records simply because they may contain discrepancies regarding a prior conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Archie" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Cantley and Teter filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against WRJA and others, challenging the constitutionality of strip searches and delousing procedures. The court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' summary judgment motion on Cantley's strip search claim on the grounds that the search was constitutional where the strip search of Cantley was covered under Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington. The court did not reach the constitutional merits of the strip search of Teter where the law was not clearly established at the time and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the strip search. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants as to the delousing procedures, but on the grounds that it was not clearly established that the delousing policy was unconstitutional. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cantley v. West Virginia Regional Jail" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs represented a certified class of individuals arrested between certain dates on charges not involving weapons, drugs, or felony violence, and strip searched prior to or without presentment before a court commissioner or other judicial officer. Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, two former wardens of Central Booking, challenging the strip searches of arrestees in Central Booking. The court concluded that the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, which came down almost four years after the class period closed, does not demonstrate that the law on jail strip searches either was or was not clearly established at the time these alleged searches were conducted. The district court correctly concluded that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law did not clearly establish at the time that the searches that were conducted were unlawful. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. View "West v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to twelve counts of producing child pornography and one count of transporting child pornography. The court held that the district court erred in its Guidelines calculation when it incorrectly applied an upward adjustment for a "vulnerable victim" under U.S.S.G. 3A1.1(b)(1) based upon one of the victims' age-related cognitive development and psychological vulnerability, factors that already were incorporated into an upward adjustment for the young age of defendant's victims under U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(1) and 2G2.2(b)(2). The court found, however, that the error was harmless and rejected defendant's remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Dowell" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and appealed his 37-month sentence. Applying the categorical approach, the court concluded that defendant's prior first-degree burglary under California Penal Code 459 and 460(a) qualified for an eight-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) because it was a crime of violence under the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. 16(b). Contrary to defendant's assertion otherwise, the district court's explanation of its sentence was more than sufficient to preclude a finding of error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Avila" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for violating the conditions of his supervised release. Defendant was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment, the mandatory minimum term required by a former version of the supervised release statute, 18 U.S.C. 3583(g). The court concluded that the district court correctly applied the former version of Section 3583(g), because that version of the statute was in effect when defendant committed the underlying crimes; Alleyne v. United States does not apply in the context of supervised release revocation proceedings; and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's sentence. View "United States v. Ward" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to bribing a private correctional officer and to conspiracy. Defendant's conviction stemmed from bribing correctional officers thousands of dollars to smuggle cell phones and tobacco products into the correctional facility where defendant was an inmate. The court concluded that the correctional officers defendant bribed occupied a sensitive position within the meaning of U.S.S.G. 2C1.1(b)(3). Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's application of a four-level enhancement under section 2C1.1(b)(3) after finding that the offense involved a public official in a sensitive position. View "United States v. Dodd" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for drug and possession charges. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime; the district court did not clearly err in treating defendant's alleged participation in the transaction at issue as "relevant conduct" under U.S.S.G. 1B1.3(a); the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) for committing an offense that involved three or more firearms where enhancing a defendant's offense level based on the number of weapons involved in the offense underlying his 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction does not constitute impermissible double counting under the Guidelines; and the district court did not err in applying a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(5) on the ground that defendant "engaged in the trafficking of firearms." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pineda" on Justia Law