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

Margaret Ann Sutton was involved in a drug trafficking operation with Vicente Andres, a known drug dealer. Sutton initially visited Andres's house to buy and distribute drugs. Their relationship turned romantic, and they traveled together to California to purchase a large quantity of methamphetamine and marijuana. Upon returning to Virginia, they continued distributing the drugs. Sutton was actively involved in the drug sales, including a transaction with an undercover officer. During a police raid, Sutton was found with marked bills from a drug sale, and a large quantity of marijuana was discovered in a puzzle box in the house.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia convicted Sutton in a bench trial of various federal criminal offenses, including possession with intent to distribute marijuana and use of a drug-involved premises. Sutton was sentenced to twenty-nine years in prison. She appealed her convictions and sentence, arguing insufficient evidence and procedural and substantive unreasonableness in her sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support Sutton's convictions. The court held that Sutton constructively possessed the marijuana found in the puzzle box, as she had control over the drugs and was aware of their presence. Additionally, the court determined that Sutton actively employed the house for the purpose of drug distribution, satisfying the requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1). The court also found that Sutton's sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable, noting that her sentence was below the Guidelines range and that the district court had considered her background and history.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, upholding Sutton's convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Sutton" on Justia Law

In September 2018, police officers in Fayetteville, North Carolina, observed a car performing a U-turn and stopping in front of Allen Wendell McNeil's house. After a brief interaction with the car's occupants, the police conducted a traffic stop and found a small bag of marijuana on the passenger. Without a warrant, the officers then went to McNeil's house for a "knock and talk." When McNeil's children answered the door and said he was not home, the officers proceeded to the backyard, where they found McNeil in a shed and detected the smell of marijuana. This led to McNeil's detention and the subsequent search and seizure of marijuana, money, and guns from his property.McNeil was charged with marijuana distribution and firearm possession. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement, and the district court sentenced him to 114 months in prison. McNeil's direct appeal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.McNeil filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search and for not pursuing a plea agreement despite his requests. The district court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, ruling that McNeil's Fourth Amendment claim was frivolous and that his statements during the Rule 11 hearing precluded his ineffective assistance claim regarding the plea agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that McNeil's ineffective assistance claims could not be resolved on the existing record. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing McNeil's claims without an evidentiary hearing, as the facts surrounding the police officers' entry into the backyard and the plea negotiations required further factual development. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. View "United States v. McNeil" on Justia Law

Conor Fitzpatrick pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in stolen personally identifying information, fraudulent solicitation of personally identifying information, and possession of child pornography. While released on bond awaiting sentencing, Fitzpatrick violated his conditions of release by secretly downloading a virtual private network and accessing the Internet without his probation officer's knowledge. At sentencing, the district court calculated Fitzpatrick’s advisory Guidelines sentencing range to be 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment but sentenced him to a 17-day time-served term of imprisonment, citing his autism spectrum disorder and youth.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia initially handled the case. Fitzpatrick was released on bond pending sentencing, subject to several special conditions, which he violated. The district court, considering Fitzpatrick’s autism and youth, imposed a significantly reduced sentence of 17 days, arguing that the Federal Bureau of Prisons would not be able to treat Fitzpatrick’s autism spectrum disorder and that he would be vulnerable in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court failed to adequately consider the seriousness of Fitzpatrick’s offenses, the need to promote respect for the law, to deter similar wrongdoing, and to protect the public. The court vacated the 17-day sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, emphasizing that a sentence must fulfill the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation. View "United States v. Fitzpatrick" on Justia Law

Dr. Anita Jackson, an otolaryngologist, was convicted of various offenses related to her private medical practice in North Carolina. She was the leading Medicare biller for balloon sinuplasty surgery, a procedure treating chronic sinusitis. Jackson reused single-use medical devices, specifically the Entellus XprESS Multi-Sinus Dilation Tool, on multiple patients without proper sterilization, leading to potential contamination. She also incentivized employees to recruit Medicare patients for the procedure, often bypassing proper medical assessments. Additionally, Jackson falsified documents and patient signatures in response to Medicare audits.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina convicted Jackson on all counts, including violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) by holding for resale adulterated medical devices, violating the federal anti-kickback statute, making materially false statements, committing aggravated identity theft, mail fraud, and conspiracy. Jackson was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison and ordered to pay over $5.7 million in restitution. She moved for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Jackson argued that the devices were not "held for sale" under the FDCA, that her actions were protected under 21 U.S.C. § 396, and that the Government relied on a defective theory of per se adulteration. She also challenged the exclusion of certain evidence and jury instructions. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's rulings, holding that the devices were indeed "held for sale," that § 396 did not protect her conduct, and that the Government's theory was valid. The court also upheld the exclusion of evidence and the jury instructions. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed all of Jackson's convictions. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Christopher William Kuehner was charged with engaging in a child exploitation enterprise. He used a website and a messaging server dedicated to sexual violence and the sexual exploitation of minors, employing two different usernames to produce and encourage the production of child sexual abuse material. Authorities identified Kuehner as the person behind these usernames and charged him accordingly.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia conducted a two-day bench trial, during which Kuehner was found guilty and sentenced to twenty years in prison. Kuehner raised several challenges on appeal, including the district court's interpretation of the child exploitation enterprises statute, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, and the denial of his motion to vacate his conviction based on the Government's alleged failure to disclose certain information.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the child exploitation enterprises statute does not require each predicate felony to be committed in concert with three or more people; rather, the total number of people can be summed across the relevant predicate offenses. The court also found that there was substantial evidence to support Kuehner's conviction, including his own admissions, forensic evidence, and testimony from minor victims. Finally, the court determined that there was no Brady violation, as the undisclosed information from Google and Discord was not material to Kuehner's defense. View "U.S. v. Kuehner" on Justia Law

David Shanton, Sr. was involved in two armed bank robberies in Hagerstown, Maryland, shortly after completing a 20-year sentence for a previous bank robbery. During the first robbery, Shanton threatened to kill anyone who called the police and pointed a shotgun at a deputy sheriff while fleeing with nearly $34,000. He was apprehended during the second attempted robbery. Shanton was indicted and convicted on multiple counts, including armed bank robbery, discharging and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and possessing a firearm as a felon.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland sentenced Shanton to 188 months for each armed bank robbery and firearm possession conviction, to be served concurrently, plus consecutive terms for the firearm offenses, totaling 608 months. Shanton's sentence was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) due to his prior convictions, including Maryland robbery. Shanton did not initially object to the enhancement. On direct appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed his convictions and sentence.Shanton later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging the constitutionality of his ACCA-enhanced sentences based on the Supreme Court's decision in Samuel Johnson v. United States, which invalidated the ACCA's residual clause. The district court allowed Shanton to supplement his motion, arguing that his Maryland robbery convictions no longer qualified as violent felonies under ACCA's elements clause. The district court rejected this argument, relying on Fourth Circuit precedent, and denied the motion but issued a certificate of appealability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that Maryland robbery qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA's elements clause, consistent with prior Fourth Circuit decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in Stokeling v. United States. The court concluded that Maryland robbery involves the use of force against a person, meeting the ACCA's definition of a violent felony. View "United States v. Shanton" on Justia Law

Charles Pittman pleaded guilty to violating a federal law that criminalizes burning or attempting to burn buildings owned by institutions that receive federal funding. He was charged with aiding and abetting others in maliciously damaging and destroying the Market House, a building owned by the City of Fayetteville, which receives federal financial assistance. During his plea hearing, Pittman confirmed his understanding of the charges and admitted to committing acts constituting the elements of the crime.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina accepted Pittman's guilty plea and later sentenced him to 60 months of imprisonment. Before sentencing, Pittman moved to dismiss Count 1, arguing that the statute required a nexus between the federal financial assistance and the damaged property, and that the criminal information failed to allege such a nexus. He also argued that the City of Fayetteville is not an "institution or organization" under the statute. The district court denied the motion to dismiss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Pittman argued that his conduct did not violate the statute and that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him. The court held that Pittman waived his statutory construction arguments by pleading guilty, as a guilty plea admits that the conduct violated the statute. The court also found that Pittman's as-applied constitutional challenge was forfeited because he did not timely raise it before the district court, and he failed to show plain error.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Pittman's guilty plea waived his statutory arguments and that his constitutional challenge was both forfeited and failed to meet the plain-error standard. View "United States v. Pittman" on Justia Law

Johnnie Franklin Wills, a state prisoner, filed a habeas petition challenging his life sentence under West Virginia’s recidivist statute. He argued that the judicially crafted test for determining whether a recidivist life sentence is proportional to the crime is unconstitutionally vague. Wills was convicted of grand larceny and conspiracy to commit grand larceny in 2016, and due to his prior eight felony convictions, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after fifteen years under the recidivist statute.The West Virginia courts denied Wills relief, stating that the void-for-vagueness doctrine does not apply to their proportionality test. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed this decision, distinguishing Wills’s case from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson v. United States and Sessions v. Dimaya, which invalidated certain statutory provisions as unconstitutionally vague. The state court maintained that the proportionality test was clear and did not fall under the same scrutiny as the statutes in Johnson and Dimaya.Wills then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia also denied. The district court found that the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The court noted that the proportionality test serves as a judicial limitation on the recidivist statute, unlike the statutory mandates in Johnson and Dimaya.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the state court’s ruling was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the U.S. Supreme Court has not extended the void-for-vagueness doctrine to judicially crafted proportionality tests. Therefore, Wills’s habeas petition was denied. View "Wills v. Pszczolkowski" on Justia Law

The defendant, Thuy Tien Luong, was convicted of forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589. Luong used threats and coercion to force the victim, a nail technician, to continue working against her will. The victim, who had a limited education and poor English skills, was subjected to physical abuse and threats of reputational harm and legal consequences by Luong. The victim was coerced into writing checks for alleged mistakes and a fabricated debt of $180,000. The abuse included physical violence, such as beatings and threats, which led to visible injuries and scars on the victim.The case was initially reviewed by the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. After a five-day trial, the jury found Luong guilty of forced labor. At sentencing, the district court applied several enhancements, including a two-level vulnerable victim enhancement and a four-level permanent scarring enhancement, resulting in a final offense level of 37. Luong was sentenced to 180 months in prison. She appealed her conviction and sentence, arguing insufficient evidence for her conviction and errors in the application of sentencing enhancements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Luong's conviction, finding substantial evidence that she knowingly coerced the victim into forced labor through threats and physical abuse. However, the court vacated and remanded her sentence for resentencing. The court found that the district court did not provide sufficient findings to support the application of the two-level vulnerable victim enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1). The court upheld the four-level permanent scarring enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2H4.1(b)(1)(A), finding sufficient evidence that the victim's scars were permanent. View "U.S. v. Luong" on Justia Law

Cornelius Mayberry was involved in a narcotics sting operation where he was arrested at a Red Roof Inn in Gaffney, South Carolina. Mayberry was found with a backpack containing over four pounds of methamphetamine. He entered a conditional guilty plea to charges including possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, and assault and resistance to official search or seizure. Mayberry reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress evidence obtained from his backpack and his post-arrest statements, as well as the court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina denied Mayberry’s motions to suppress, finding that the officers had probable cause to arrest him and that he had abandoned his backpack. The court also denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, concluding that Mayberry had not provided a fair and just reason for the withdrawal. Mayberry was sentenced to 414 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mayberry’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. The court also found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Mayberry based on the information provided by a cooperating individual and the real-time observations of Mayberry’s actions. Additionally, the court upheld the district court’s finding that Mayberry had abandoned his backpack, thus relinquishing any reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Consequently, the search of the backpack was deemed lawful. View "US v. Mayberry" on Justia Law