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

Respondent appealed the district court's order concluding that he was a sexually dangerous person under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, and committing him to the custody of the Attorney General. The court concluded that the procedure set forth in 18 U.S.C. 4248(a) for initiating proceedings for the civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person supplants the summons requirement set forth in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That the government has physical custody over the respondent in section 4248 civil commitment proceedings obviates the need for a summons. The court concluded that the government easily presented sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that, by clear and convincing evidence, respondent, as a result of his pedophilia, would have serious difficulty in refraining from child molestation if released. The court rejected respondent's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. De La Luz Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions on five counts of narcotics trafficking. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in its evidentiary rulings as viewed in their totality. The court held that safeguards adopted by the district court to avoid the substantial risk of prejudice inhering in the jury's receipt of the decoding expert's testimony was inadequate. Neither the district court's cautionary instructions to the jury nor its sporadic sustaining of some of counsel's objections adequately mitigated the risk of substantial prejudice. Further, the errors were not harmless. Although the court discerned no reversible error in the district court's denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal, the court held that the errors in the decoding expert's testimony so infected the entire trial that the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to three counts arising from his fraudulent activity in connection with a client's initial public offering. Defendant sought habeas relief, contending that, in light of the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, the conduct for which he was convicted is no longer criminal. The court found Janus inapplicable outside the context of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), implied private right of action. Therefore, Janus does not affect defendant's criminal convictions. Because defendant's convictions are proper under current law, the court concluded that his section 2241 petition necessarily failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of his petition.View "Prousalis, Jr. v. Moore" on Justia Law

Movant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances and sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without parole. He was 17 years old when the conspiracy began and the conspiracy continued until he had turned 18. After the Supreme Court issued its decision in Miller v. Alabama, movant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) seeking authorization to file a successive section 2255 motion. The court denied the motion, concluding that, even assuming that movant qualified as a juvenile offender, his proposed motion would necessarily rely on a right that became available to him in 2010 with the Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida, which held that sentencing a juvenile who did not commit a homicide to life imprisonment without parole violated the Eighth Amendment, and not on Miller, which extended the Graham rule to prohibit mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of committing homicide. Because Graham was decided more than one year before movant filed his section 2255(h) motion, the successive section 2255 motion he sought leave to file would be barred by the applicable one year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(3). View "In re: Tadd Vassell" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus against the State. Immediately after the jury returned its sentencing recommendation, petitioner alleged to the state trial judge that one of the jurors discussed the death penalty with her pastor the previous day. The court concluded that the state post-conviction court's failure to apply a presumption of prejudice and failure to investigate petitioner's juror misconduct claim, which was based on an external influence on the jury, was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the state court's failures had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury's verdict. View "Barnes v. Joyner" on Justia Law

Respondent, civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person, challenged the denial of the motions to extend and reopen the discovery period, motions to withdraw as counsel, and motions to appoint a second expert. The court concluded that, in proceedings that could result in the lifelong incarceration of respondent who has already served his full sentence, respondent was forced to be represented by an attorney asserting multiple conflicts of interest with whom he had not prepared for trial because of their inability to communicate. The district court abused its discretion in requiring counsel to continue representing respondent and the error was not harmless. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment as to the motions to withdraw and remanded for the district court to consider these motions after engaging in the appropriate inquiry regarding the extent of counsel's conflicts.View "United States v. Blackledge" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of a prohibited object by a federal inmate. Defendant received a jury trial in which the jury made two specific factual findings but never returned a guilty verdict. The court vacated defendant's conviction and sentence and remanded, concluding that the district court violated defendant's right to have a jury determine his guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.View "United States v. Ramirez-Castillo" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possessing two firearms while being an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3). Defendant argued that section 922(g)(3) infringed his right to bear arms, in violation of the Second Amendment. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, agreeing that the government adequately demonstrated a reasonable fit between its important interest in protecting the community from gun violence and section 922(g)(3), which disarms unlawful drug users and addicts.View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former officer of the Baltimore Police Department (BPD), was convicted of four offenses related to his involvement in a kickback scheme to funnel wrecked automobiles to a Baltimore auto repair shop in exchange for monetary payments. The court affirmed defendant's convictions on three Hobbs Act extortion counts, 18 U.S.C. 1951, plus a charge of conspiracy to commit such extortion, 18 U.S.C. 371. The court vacated the district court's award of restitution to Erie Insurance because Erie was not a "victim" under the Victim Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663.View "United States v. Ocasio" on Justia Law

Defendant Erasto appealed his sentence of 180 months' imprisonment and Defendant Juarez-Gomez appealed two of the six counts he was convicted of and the application of several sentencing enhancements. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support Juarez-Gomez's conviction of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine and aiding and abetting the same; the court affirmed the district court's application of U.S.S.G. 3B1.4, the use of a minor enhancement; affirmed the district court's imposition of an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon for Erasto; affirmed the district court's imposition of the leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c) for Juarez-Gomez; and therefore, affirmed the judgments of the district court.View "United States v. Gomez-Jimenez" on Justia Law