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

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to a drug and firearm offense. The court rejected defendant's contention that NCIC reports were categorically unreliable in light of the widespread use of the reports. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant's NCIC report, in addition to the corroboration provided by the Government, established the fact that defendant was convicted in 1971 of second degree assault by a preponderance of the evidence. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to establish the fact of his prior conviction where the Supreme Court has held in Almendarez-Torres v. United States that the Sixth Amendment permits a judge to find the fact of a prior conviction by a mere preponderance of the evidence, even if this fact raises the statutory maximum or minimum penalty for the current offense. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that defendant committed the 1971 assault and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. McDowell, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentencing enhancement after pleading guilty to possessing child pornography. At sentencing, the district court determined that, as part of the offense, defendant caused a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of that conduct. The court agreed with its sister circuits that the cross-reference's purpose requirement was satisfied anytime one of the defendant's purposes was to produce a visual depiction of the sexually explicit conduct. On these facts, the court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(c)(1) cross-reference and that defendant's sentence was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Cox" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for interstate transport of a minor with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution or other criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(a). The court concluded that the district court correctly instructed the jury that under section 2423(a), the government was not required to prove that defendant knew that the victim was a minor. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an upward variance where the district court concluded that the advisory sentencing range neither provided adequate deterrence nor adequately protected the public. Further, the extent of the variance was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Washington" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for the robbery of P & S Coins and the planned robbery of All American Coins. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict Defendant Janson of robbing P & S Coins where the evidence of his partial fingerprint on duct tape, a moveable object, used in the robbery and his possession of a gun that had been taken during the P & S Coins robbery, which occurred two months prior, was insufficient to convict him; the district court erred by denying Janson's motion for judgment of acquittal on the charges related to the P & S robbery; the government presented sufficient evidence to sustain the conspiracy and firearm convictions against Janson relating to the All American Coins robbery; and the court remanded Defendant Jimmy's case for resentencing on the brandishing charge arising from the P&S Coins robbery because the district court failed to instruct the jurors that to convict Jimmy of that offense, they needed to find that he brandished a gun. View "United States v. Strayhorn" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for cocaine distribution. Defendant argued that the district court committed plain error in assigning the drug quantity by relying on a statement in the presentencing report (PSR). The court concluded that defendant waived this argument when he made the conscious choice to proceed on the basis of the information contained in the PSR. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err by treating defendant's 2003 marijuana sentence as a prior sentence rather than relevant conduct, and by adding two points to his criminal history score because he participated in a drug conspiracy while on probation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against police officers, the County, and the City after officers assaulted them outside of a nightclub. The court affirmed the district court's post-trial determination that plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for bystander liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In doing so, however, the court vacated and remanded the district court's summary judgment ruling to the opposite effect. The only defendant that the reversal of this issue impacted was Officer Lowery because he was the only defendant against whom the section 1983 count survived dismissal. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Officer Adey on the excessive force and battery counts with respect to all plaintiffs and the grant of summary judgment to Officer Lowery in his alleged role as a principal actor on the section 1983 count with respect to Plaintiffs Howard and Barnett. Because Officer Adey was not liable for either the battery or the excessive force counts as to any of plaintiffs, the County was also not liable under the Maryland constitutional count on the theory of vicarious liability. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs' Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the ruling on summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. View "Stevenson v. City of Seat Pleasant, MD" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of charges related to credit and debit card fraud. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss based on purported Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161, violations; the district court did not plainly err in admitting business records related to cardholders who did not testify at trial where the business records were not testimonial; the business records reflected fraudulent transactions that were ultimately traced to defendant and were plainly relevant to proving access device fraud; the business records were not unduly prejudicial; and the court rejected defendant's argument that evidence of unauthorized transactions to which no cardholder testified should have been excluded at trial and at sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Keita" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of several offenses arising from terrorism activities. In consolidated appeals, defendants raised several arguments challenging their convictions and sentences. The court rejected defendants' argument that their speech espousing violent jihad was protected by the First Amendment, concluding that the First Amendment was no bar to the government's use of defendants' speech to demonstrate their participation in the charged conspiracies; the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give defendants' proposed jury instructions; the court rejected defendants' numerous claims of evidentiary errors; and the evidence was sufficient to support their various convictions. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err by applying the terrorism enhancement; Defendant Hassan failed to establish that he was a minimal participant and did not qualify for a reduction in his sentence based on that ground; and Defendants Yaghi and Sherifi's sentences were substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hassan" on Justia Law

The district court granted defendant's motion for a mistrial on the condition that she waive her rights under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161 - 3174. More than 70 days after the mistrial was declared, the district court conducted a second trial where the jury found defendant guilty of theft of government funds. The court held that although defendant's attempt to waive her rights under the Act was null and void, she was not entitled to assert for the first time on appeal that a violation of the Act occurred; the plain language of the Act required that a defendant asserting a violation of the Act move for dismissal of an indictment before a new trial begins, or be precluded from seeking such a dismissal; in view of this waiver imposed by statute, the court was not permitted to consider defendant's argument that her rights under the Act were violated; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Mosteller" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's order of civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 18 U.S.C. 4247-48. The court concluded that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to find that defendant met the standard for civil commitment under the Act where the Government did not present clear and convincing evidence that defendant's mental illnesses would cause him to have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Antone" on Justia Law