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

Defendant appealed his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court concluded that defendant was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), due to his three prior state convictions for "breaking and entering" in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-54(a). The court concluded that N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-54(a), as interpreted by the North Carolina Supreme Court, sweeps no more broadly than the generic elements of burglary. The state court's clarification that the offense requires either breaking or entering without a building owner's consent brings it within Taylor v. United States's requirement of an "unlawful or unprivileged entry." This clarification also "excludes any case in which a person enters premises open to the public, no matter his intent" as required by Descamps v. United States. Accordingly, N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-54(a) qualifies as an ACCA predicate offense under section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Mungro, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the law enforcement officer's search of defendant's car was unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because the probable cause on which the search was based was tainted. Defendant's discriminatory statements that gave rise to probable cause to search the car were elicited in response to the officer's manifestly false assertion that he had probable cause to search the car and his suggestion that, with our without defendant's consent, he would proceed with the search. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order denying the suppression motion, vacated defendant's conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Saafir" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence stemming from several instances of criminal conduct that defendant was accused of undertaking between October 2001 and June 2002. The Superseding indictment charged defendant in Count One with conspiracy to receive, possess, conceal, store, barter, sell, and dispose of stolen firearms; in Count Two with the substantive 18 U.S.C. 922(j) offense; in Count Three with solicitation of another to assist in damaging and destroying by explosive the Johnston County Courthouse and Sheriff's office; in Count Four with receiving an explosive with the intent that it be used to kill, injure, or intimidate other persons and to damage and destroy buildings; in Count Five with a misdemeanor charge of improperly storing explosive materials; and in Count Six with distributing explosive materials to an individual under twenty-one years of age. The court affirmed defendant's convictions on Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment, but reversed his convictions on Counts Five and Six. Because the latter two convictions did not materially affect his sentence, the court did not remand for resentencing.View "United States v. Barefoot, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for two counts of Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) and one count of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for two independent reasons. Whether viewed through the lens of the effect of defendant's crimes (depletion of assets) or his intent (targeting), the government adduced sufficient evidence in this case to meet the jurisdictional element of the Hobbs Act. Therefore, the court upheld defendant's Hobbs Act convictions. Because defendant challenged his firearm conviction solely on the ground that the Hobbs Act predicate was infirm, that conviction too must be upheld.View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to wire fraud; money laundering; making a false statement on a loan application to a financial institution, the accounts of which are insured by the FDIC; and corrupt interference with the internal revenue laws of the United States. The court concluded that the district court did not err by increasing defendant's offense level under the Guidelines by 2 levels under U.S.S.G. 3B1.3 for abuse of a position of trust; by increasing his offense level under the Guidelines by 20 levels under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1)(K); and by failing sua sponte to appoint various experts to assist in his defense at sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's sentence.View "United States v. Weiss" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court concluded that the district court erred by increasing defendant's sentence after determining that his prior conviction for fourth-degree burglary constituted a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(2). Therefore, the court vacated defendant's 77-month sentence and remanded for resentencing.View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. The court agreed with the district court's decision to use defendant's general court-martial convictions to classify him as an armed career criminal and rejected defendant's argument which primarily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Small v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Grant" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a death row inmate, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner claimed that an eyewitness's in-court identification violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief because the North Carolina state court's rejection of petitioner's claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established law, as determined by the Supreme Court. The court held that the procedures leading up to the eyewitness's in-court identification were not unnecessarily suggestive and that, even if they were, they did not create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The court also denied petitioner's motion for appointment of qualified and independent counsel under Martinez v. Ryan and Juniper v. Davis.View "Fowler v. Lassiter" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges stemming from his distribution of substances ("bath salts") that the government alleged were prohibited by the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986, 21 U.S.C. 802(32)(A), 813. The court rejected defendant's argument that the Act is unconstitutional because he lacked notice that the distribution of controlled substance analogues is prohibited under federal law; rejected defendant's challenges to the district court's rulings made during trial; and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. McFadden" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's revocation of his supervised release. The district court found that defendant had violated his supervised release by, among other things, possessing marijuana. The district court's finding relied in part on a laboratory report prepared by a forensic examiner who did not testify at the hearing. The court vacated the sentence and remanded, holding that the district court erred by denying defendant a chance to cross-examine the forensic examiner.View "United States v. Ferguson" on Justia Law