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

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

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, contending that the district court erred in considering any 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors other than substantial assistance when determining the extent of his sentence reduction below the mandatory minimum. The court concluded that, following United States v. Hood, the district court correctly concluded that, once it had departed below a mandatory minimum sentence on the basis of a defendant's substantial assistance, it could not further depart based on any non-assistance factor. The court rejected defendant's arguments to the contrary. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Spinks" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 111 for four counts arising from intimate sexual activities in a national park and ensuing physical altercation with U.S. Park Police officers. The court concluded that it was proper for the district court to instruct the jury that defendant could have committed any of the threshold acts charged - not only "assault" - to be found guilty of a section 111 offense, so long as the other elements of the offense were satisfied. Further, given the overwhelming evidence, the court found no reversible error in the district court's admittance of evidence of a subsequent crime under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Briley" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Sudan, sought review of the BIA's order of removal based on his conviction of two crimes involving moral turpitude. Petitioner was convicted under state law in 2010 for sexual battery and in 2011 for failing to register as a sex offender. The court did not defer to the BIA's decision in Matter of Tobar-Lobo because the BIA erroneously based its conclusion on the registration statute's purpose and not the nature of a conviction under the statute. The court concluded that, because petitioner's failure to register conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude, the BIA erred as a matter of law in relying on that conviction as a basis to order petitioner's removal under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and reversed the BIA's decision, remanding with instructions. View "Mohamed v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction, sentence, and the district court's restitution order for one count of making a false statement in connection with his receipt of federal workers' compensation benefits in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1920. The court rejected defendant's Brady v. Maryland claim, that his conviction should be vacated because the government failed to disclose evidence that undermined the government's theory that he willfully concealed certain work he performed, for numerous reasons. The court declined to follow the few decisions in other circuits that view loss amount as a punitive sentencing factor. The court concluded that defendant's felony conviction cannot stand because the jury made no finding that the amount of benefits falsely obtained exceeded $1000 and the court was unable to locate overwhelming evidence in the record to support such a conclusion. The court directed the district court to impose a misdemeanor sentence on remand. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing where the district court failed to apply the analysis required under United States v. Dawkins, and its loss amount calculation was therefore erroneous. The court also vacated the award of restitution and remanded for recalculation. View "United States v. Catone, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The court concluded that the motion to suppress should have been raised prior to trial and, because it was not, it was waived. Further, the evidence was sufficient to support finding a nexus between the drug trafficking and firearms under section 924(c). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant and affirmed his conviction; the court found no due process violation; but, because the facts do not affirmatively demonstrate sophisticated means under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) in his attempt to commit bank fraud, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing.View "United States v. Adepoju" on Justia Law

The Government subpoenaed a 19-year-old man, (Doe Jr.) to testify with regard to potential federal charges against his father (Mr. Doe). Doe Jr. moved to quash the subpoena under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(2), claiming that his testimony was shielded by a purported parent-child privilege and the district court granted the motion. The court, concluded, however, that no federal appellate court has recognized a parent-child privilege and the court declined to do so in this case. Doe Jr. has not made a strong showing of need for the parent-child privilege and "reason and experience" did not warrant creation of the privilege in the face of substantial authority to the contrary. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.View "In re: Grand Jury Subpoena" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's dismissal of his claim under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(a) and 2255(h), holding that defendant did not meet the requirements of a permissible second or successive motion to vacate. The court held that a numerically second section 2255 motion should not be considered second or successive under section 2255(h) where, as here, the facts relied on by the movant seeking resentencing did not exist when the numerically first motion was filed and adjudicated. Here, defendant's claim was unripe at the time his numerically first motion was adjudicated. Thus, in light of the subsequent vacatur of his state No Operator's License conviction, which contributed to the original guidelines calculation of his federal sentence, his motion was not successive. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Hairston" on Justia Law