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

Between September 2021 and January 2022, agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, along with local law enforcement in Sanford, North Carolina, coordinated controlled buys of narcotics using a confidential informant (CI). The CI purchased drugs from various individuals, including the appellant, Brian Thomas Bright. The CI primarily interacted with Keyonta McDougald, who facilitated drug buys from Bright. Bright also directed William Samuel Pergerson to assist in drug transactions. Bright and seven others were indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina sentenced Bright to 97 months of imprisonment after he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated Bright’s base offense level as 26, with a three-point enhancement for a managerial role under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) § 3B1.1(b). Bright objected to the enhancement, arguing that his criminal activity involved fewer than five participants. The district court overruled the objection, finding that the three-level enhancement was appropriate due to the extent of Bright’s involvement in the conspiracy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court committed procedural error by not making the necessary findings regarding the scope of the criminal activity and the number of participants involved, as required by Guidelines § 1B1.3 and United States v. Evans. The Fourth Circuit vacated Bright’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, instructing the district court to make the requisite particularized findings or determine if the criminal activity was "otherwise extensive." View "US v. Bright" on Justia Law

Felix Jacobo Salomon-Guillen, a native of El Salvador, entered the United States in 2009 on an O-3 visa as the spouse of Lucia Parker Salomon, a recording artist who later became a naturalized citizen. Salomon-Guillen became a permanent resident and managed his wife's music career. In 2013, he began working as a marketing director for a book publisher and engaged in a fraudulent scheme that cost the company $1.4 million. He was indicted for wire fraud, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 18 months in prison.The government sought to remove Salomon-Guillen from the country due to his aggravated felony conviction. He conceded removability and applied for adjustment of status and an inadmissibility waiver. The immigration judge denied his applications, finding that he failed to demonstrate that his removal would cause "extreme hardship" to his wife or mother, both U.S. citizens. The judge also concluded that Salomon-Guillen did not merit a waiver or adjustment of status as a matter of discretion due to the severity of his fraud offense.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the immigration judge's decision. The BIA, with Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge Denise G. Brown participating, found that Salomon-Guillen failed to show that his wife would suffer extreme hardship if she accompanied him to El Salvador. The BIA also agreed that he did not merit a waiver or adjustment of status as a matter of discretion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the regulation allowing temporary Board members to serve six-month terms did not preclude their reappointment for additional terms. The court also found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary denial of the inadmissibility waiver. Consequently, the petition for review was denied in part and dismissed in part. View "Saloman-Guillen v. Garland" on Justia Law

Matthew Ryan Hunt was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits individuals convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year from possessing firearms. Hunt's 2017 conviction for breaking and entering in West Virginia served as the predicate offense. In May 2022, Hunt pleaded guilty without raising a Second Amendment challenge. On appeal, Hunt argued that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment both facially and as applied to him. He also contended that the district court erred in applying a four-point enhancement to his offense level under the federal sentencing guidelines.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia accepted Hunt's guilty plea and applied the four-point enhancement, finding that Hunt had fired a gun inside an apartment building during a domestic violence incident, which constituted wanton endangerment under West Virginia law. Hunt appealed the decision, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional and that the district court's factual findings were erroneous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reaffirmed that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional, consistent with its prior decision in United States v. Canada. The court also rejected Hunt's as-applied challenge, holding that neither the Supreme Court's decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen nor United States v. Rahimi abrogated the Fourth Circuit's precedent foreclosing as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1). Additionally, the court concluded that § 922(g)(1) would survive Second Amendment scrutiny even if decided anew.The Fourth Circuit also upheld the district court's application of the four-point enhancement, finding no clear error in the factual determination that Hunt fired a gun in the apartment. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "US v. Hunt" on Justia Law

In early 2022, Abel Gaspar, Jr. and his co-defendant, Sergio Emmanuel Cervantes Moran, sold methamphetamine to undercover officers on multiple occasions. On January 26, Gaspar delivered 111 grams of methamphetamine to a confidential source in a Walmart parking lot. On February 15, Gaspar sold 419 grams of methamphetamine to a DEA officer in Raleigh. On February 25, Gaspar was pulled over for speeding and fled, leaving behind 2,002 grams of methamphetamine, a firearm, and other drugs. On May 4, officers arrested Moran and searched Gaspar’s home, finding more drugs, cash, and firearms.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina sentenced Gaspar after he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The presentence investigation report recommended a downward variance to 210 months’ imprisonment. Gaspar requested a further reduction to 120 months, arguing he participated in the conspiracy out of fear for his family’s safety due to threats from Moran. The district court sentenced Gaspar to 188 months, considering the seriousness of the offense, his criminal history, and mitigating factors including his family support and childhood exposure to drugs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed Gaspar’s appeal, in which he argued that the district court failed to adequately address his claim of duress. The Fourth Circuit found that the district court had considered Gaspar’s argument, noting the court’s acknowledgment of the presentencing memorandum and the bench conference where Gaspar’s concerns were discussed. The court concluded that the district court’s explanation was sufficient and affirmed the 188-month sentence, finding it procedurally reasonable. View "United States v. Gaspar" on Justia Law

Stanley Lubkin pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a), and 924(e). In his plea agreement, Lubkin waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence in exchange for several concessions from the government, including the dismissal of additional charges and a recommendation against state prosecution. The plea agreement and plea colloquy informed Lubkin that he could be sentenced as an armed career criminal, which would entail a mandatory minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life in prison. The district court sentenced him to 15 years as an armed career criminal.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina accepted Lubkin's guilty plea after a thorough plea colloquy, ensuring that he understood the charges, potential penalties, and the appeal waiver. The court later sentenced him to 15 years in prison, finding that his prior convictions qualified him as an armed career criminal under the ACCA. Lubkin appealed, arguing that the court erred in classifying him as an armed career criminal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and dismissed the appeal. The court held that Lubkin's appeal waiver was valid and enforceable, as it was made knowingly and voluntarily. The court found that Lubkin's argument fell within the scope of the waiver, and no exceptions applied. The court emphasized that enforcing the waiver preserved the value of plea agreements and the benefits of the plea system, such as speed, economy, and finality. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the district court's sentence. View "United States v. Lubkin" on Justia Law

Robert Keshaun Turner pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm after police seized a gun from a car in which he was sitting. Turner challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the gun on Fourth Amendment grounds, arguing that the search was unlawful. He also contended that inconsistencies between the supervised-release conditions announced at his sentencing and those in his written judgment constituted an error.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied Turner’s motion to suppress, holding that the search of the car was a lawful search incident to arrest under Arizona v. Gant. The court found that it was reasonable to believe the vehicle contained evidence of the crime of arrest. Turner then pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling. At sentencing, the district court adopted a Sentencing Guidelines advisory range of 46 to 57 months, based on an offense level of 19 and seven criminal history points, placing Turner in criminal history category IV. Turner was sentenced to 57 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress, agreeing that the search was justified under Gant. The court found no Fourth Amendment violation. However, the court vacated Turner’s sentence due to a miscalculation of his criminal history score, which resulted in an incorrect advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. The court remanded the case for resentencing under the correct range. The court also found no material discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment regarding the supervised-release conditions, thus no error under United States v. Rogers. View "United States v. Turner" on Justia Law

Mohamed Lamine Kouyate, a 36-year-old native and citizen of Guinea, entered the United States on a tourist visa in 2014 due to concerns about political unrest in Guinea. He overstayed his visa and was later convicted in Maryland for identity fraud involving over $100,000, resulting in a 15-year prison sentence. Following his release on parole, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability for overstaying his visa. Kouyate applied for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming he would be persecuted or tortured if returned to Guinea due to his father's political notoriety.An immigration judge (IJ) denied Kouyate's applications, ruling that his identity fraud conviction constituted a "particularly serious crime," making him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal under the INA and CAT. The IJ also denied his application for deferral of removal under the CAT, finding insufficient evidence that he would likely be tortured if returned to Guinea. The IJ noted that the political climate in Guinea had changed, and Kouyate's fears were speculative and based on generalized concerns of violence.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Kouyate's appeal, deeming his challenge to the IJ's particularly serious crime ruling waived and affirming the IJ's denial of deferral of removal under the CAT. The BIA agreed with the IJ's assessment that Kouyate's fears were speculative and not supported by sufficient evidence of a particularized risk of torture.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed both the IJ's and BIA's decisions, finding no reversible error. The court upheld the BIA's determination that Kouyate had not exhausted his administrative remedies regarding the particularly serious crime ruling and affirmed the denial of deferral of removal under the CAT, concluding that substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision. The petition for review was denied. View "Kouyate v. Garland" on Justia Law

Stephen Bullis was convicted of six federal crimes, including two counts of using a firearm during and in relation to other crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). After serving twenty-three years in prison, the United States Supreme Court struck down the “residual clause” of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) as unconstitutional. This led the district court to set aside Bullis’s two Section 924(c) convictions and resentence him on the remaining four counts. Bullis argued that the resentencing violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause because he had fully served his sentence on these counts at the time of the resentencing.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina initially sentenced Bullis to 235 months of imprisonment on each of Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5, all to run concurrently. On Count 3, Bullis was sentenced to 360 months, and on Count 6, he received a lifetime sentence, both to run consecutively to the 235-month concurrent sentences. After the Supreme Court’s ruling, the district court vacated Counts 3 and 6 and resentenced Bullis to 450 months on Count 2 and 240 months on Counts 1, 3, and 5, all to run concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Bullis’s resentencing did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because his sentences for Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5 were part of a consecutive sentence package that had not been fully served. However, the court found that the district court committed reversible errors by imposing a special condition of supervised release that differed materially from the court’s oral pronouncement and by failing to incorporate clearly the Standard Conditions of Supervision as adopted in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the case for resentencing. View "US v. Bullis" on Justia Law

Rose-Marie Nsahlai was convicted for her involvement in a scheme to fraudulently obtain Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. Nsahlai and her husband, Didier Kindambu, applied for two PPP loans using false information and then used the loan proceeds for unauthorized purposes. The fraudulent applications included fabricated payroll documentation created by Nsahlai, which falsely represented that the Papillon companies had substantial payroll expenses. The loans, totaling over $2.5 million, were approved and deposited into their accounts, and the funds were subsequently used for personal expenses, including the purchase of a new residence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia convicted Nsahlai on charges of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, and unlawful monetary transactions. Before trial, the district court excluded evidence related to Nsahlai's claims of domestic abuse by Kindambu, ruling it irrelevant and prejudicial. Nsahlai argued that this evidence was necessary to explain her actions and lack of intent to commit fraud. The court allowed her to testify that she felt compelled by her relationship but prohibited specific references to abuse.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court found no reversible error in the exclusion of the domestic abuse evidence, concluding that it was not relevant to the charges and that any error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of Nsahlai's guilt. The court also rejected Nsahlai's challenge to the jury instructions, determining that the instructions, when read as a whole, did not mislead the jury or affect her substantial rights. The court held that the instructions properly required the jury to find the elements of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Nsahlai's convictions. View "US v. Nsahlai" on Justia Law

David Chang participated in a drug-trafficking conspiracy from March to October 2021, supplying large quantities of cocaine from California to Harold Campbell, a mid-level distributor in Virginia Beach, Virginia. After an investigation, Chang and Campbell were indicted for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment and four years’ supervised release. Both pleaded guilty, and Chang was initially sentenced to 72 months’ imprisonment and four years’ supervised release.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found Chang eligible for the safety valve under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) but erroneously applied the statutory minimum sentence. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. At the resentencing, the district court imposed a sentence of 69 months’ imprisonment and ten years’ supervised release, citing Chang’s significant role in the drug conspiracy and his criminal history.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the increased term of supervised release, despite a slight reduction in imprisonment, constituted a harsher sentence. The court held that this harsher sentence raised a presumption of vindictiveness under North Carolina v. Pearce, which was not adequately rebutted by the district court. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit vacated Chang’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, emphasizing the need to avoid any appearance of vindictiveness in the sentencing process. View "United States v. Chang" on Justia Law