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

Defendant was a detective in Baltimore’s Gun Trace Task Force, a unit charged with investigating firearms-related crimes. After a trial where the government showed Defendant and some of his colleagues stole money, drugs, and other items on the job, a jury convicted him of Hobbs Act robbery and racketeering offenses. The district court sentenced Defendant to 18 years of imprisonment, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. This appeal challenges the district court’s later-imposed restitution order. Defendant claimed the restitution order is unwarranted and unsupported. The people to whom the court ordered Defendant to make restitution both admitted to selling drugs, and one said at least some of the stolen cash came from illegal drug sales. Defendant argued these people were not “victims” under 18 U.S.C. Section 3663A(a)(2) because “[t]he proceeds of illegal activity are not the property of the person who obtained the funds through that activity” and the government failed to prove that either the cash or personal property was “untainted.”   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that although one of the people to whom Defendant was ordered to make restitution admitted some of the stolen cash was drug proceeds, the same person insisted the rest was lawfully earned from his job as a painter. Defendant, in contrast, suggests all the stolen cash and property were drug proceeds. The restitution statutes supply no rules for how district courts are to resolve these sorts of questions. The court wrote that, in the end, “no amount of policy talk can overcome plain statutory text.” View "US v. Marcus Taylor" on Justia Law

In 2015, a jury convicted Petitioner of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a “crime of violence”—in Petitioner’s case, attempted Hobbs Act robbery— in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). Petitioner’s Section 924(c) conviction (and the associated ten-year prison sentence) is no longer valid.   Having previously sought relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, Petitioner now moves for authorization to file a second or successive Section 2255 motion to vacate his Section 924(c) conviction. The court granted Petitioner’s authorization motion, finding that he meets the standard for filing a second or successive motion set forth in Section 2255(h)(2). The court explained that Petitioner must “make a prima facie showing that” his claim satisfies the Section 2255(h) gatekeeping test. The parties agree that Petitioner has made a prima facie showing that his Davis claim satisfies Section 2255(h)(2), which requires his second or successive motion to contain “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” Petitioner and the Government contend that Thomas, wherein the Fourth Circuit has held that petitioner’s Davis claim met the Section 2255(h)(2) requirements, is on all fours with the instant case. View "In re: Kenneth Graham" on Justia Law

Prior to Defendant’s criminal trial for transferring obscene material to a minor, the district court relied on Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to exclude evidence that the recipient of the allegedly obscene material was Miller’s fourteen-year-old sister. The Government appealed, asserting that the court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence because it relates to elements of the offense and is necessary for the Government to tell the complete story of how the crime occurred.   The court, in considering the evidence’s high probative value and minimal risk of unfair prejudice, found that the district court plainly abused its discretion in excluding the evidence. The court explained that for the Government to tell a complete story of Defendant’s crime that “satisfies the jurors’ expectations,” the Government must tell the jury how he knew the victim before presenting the allegedly obscene letter that resulted from his contact with her. The court concluded that the probative value of the Government’s evidence is not substantially outweighed by risk of unfair prejudice. Moreover, in view of the foregoing, the court held that the district court’s error in excluding the evidence warrants reversal as a plain abuse of discretion. View "US v. Darrin Miller" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for various sexual exploitation offenses related to photographs he took of his daughter after law enforcement executed a search warrant at his home, leading to the discovery of certain photographs. Defendant was ultimately convicted and appealed.On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the warrant affidavit lacked probable cause because the conduct described occurred five to eight years earlier and that the good faith exception did not apply. Defendant also challenged the admission of video evidence of the complaining witness. Finally, he challenged the application of a sentencing enhancement under Sec. 4B1.5(b)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines based on "a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct."The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Regarding Defendant's motion to suppress, the court held that the district court appropriately concluded that probable cause existed, given the nature of the allegations and the type of evidence that was the object of the search. Regarding the challenged evidence, the court explained that the videos were "inextricably intertwined" with evidence of the charged offense. Finally, the court rejected Defendant's claim of error regarding the sentencing enhancement, finding that the district court did not commit clear error in finding Defendant's conduct showed a "pattern of activity" of prohibited sexual conduct. View "US v. William Ebert" on Justia Law

Three months after Defendant was arrested for various child pornography offenses—his lawyer moved to have him declared mentally incompetent. The district court found Defendant incompetent and committed him to the custody of the Attorney General. The government requested an involuntary medication order, and the district court set a hearing. The district court concluded an involuntary medication order was appropriate and granted the government “four months within which to” restore Defendant’s competency. Defendant appealed the involuntary medication order and his continued detention.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that it understands that involuntary medication orders “carry an unsavory pedigree” and prolonged pretrial detention of a presumptively innocent person “is serious business.” However, given the deferential standards of review, the court concluded the district court committed no reversible error in deciding an involuntary medication order was warranted and found it appropriate to grant one final four-month period of confinement to attempt to restore Defendant’s competency. View "US v. Christopher Tucker" on Justia Law

While on supervised release for a child pornography conviction, Defendant submitted to polygraph testing. During his polygraph exam, Defendant admitted to possessing adult pornography. In addition, his answers to other questions indicated possible deception. After the exam, Defendant’s probation officer asked him if he possessed child pornography. Linville admitted he did. Then, after he and the probation officer traveled to Defendant’s home, he turned the adult and child pornography over to probation. In addition to petitioning for the revocation of his supervised release, the government charged Defendant with possession of child pornography. Defendant moved to suppress his statement to his probation officer, admitting that he possessed child pornography and that the child pornography was at his home.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the special condition did not indicate invoking the Fifth Amendment would lead to the revocation of Defendant’s supervised release. Nor did Defendant demonstrate a reasonable belief that he would be punished for invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. The court explained that the government did not expressly or implicitly assert that it would revoke Defendant’s supervised release if he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. And even if Defendant believed invoking the Fifth Amendment would have risked revocation, his belief was not reasonable. View "US v. Eugene Linville" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on one count of possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felon. Defendant filed a motion to suppress this evidence, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion when they seized him. Following an evidentiary hearing, during which the two officers testified, the district court found the stop was valid and denied the suppression motion. Defendant then entered a conditional plea of guilty, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s order, vacated Defendant’s conviction, and remanded. The court held that the officers lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify seizing Defendant. The court reasoned that although the officers did not physically restrain Defendant until he lifted his shirt high enough for the officer to see the outline of a firearm, the officers did continue to seize Defendant without reasonable suspicion. It was only after “requesting” that Defendant lift his shirt at least fifteen times, inferring that Defendant should submit to a pat down two times, and mentioning that Defendant could be taken to jail for trespass two times that the officer observed “what appeared to be like the bulge or the outline of a muzzle of a pistol” below Defendant’s belt buckle. The court concluded that the Government’s factors—when weighed and assessed in the totality of the circumstances—do not constitute reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure. View "US v. Anthony Peters" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute fifty or more grams of methamphetamine. The offense carried a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment. At sentencing, Defendant argued that she was eligible for relief from that mandatory minimum under the First Step Act’s safety valve provision. The sole issue on appeal is whether the word “and” in Section 3553(f)(1) connecting the criminal history characteristics applies conjunctively or disjunctively.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed and concluded that “and” is conjunctive. The court wrote that it is persuaded that the plain text of Section 3553(f)(1) requires a sentencing court to find that a defendant has all three of the listed criminal history characteristics before excluding a defendant from safety valve eligibility. View "US v. Cassity Jones" on Justia Law

Habeas Petitioner was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for thirty years in South Carolina state court for a number of crimes he committed in 1987, including two murders. But in 2004, the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services (“Department”) notified Petitioner that he would never be eligible to seek parole because of an earlier armed-robbery conviction. Petitioner contends that, in reaching this conclusion, the Department violated his federal due-process rights because, in his view, a temporary change in South Carolina parole-eligibility law in 1994 permanently “vested” his parole eligibility, such that the Department could not legally determine him ineligible to ever seek parole. The district court rejected Petitioner’s contention.   The Fourth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court explained that there is no dispute that Petitioner received a statement of reasons why he was not eligible for parole. The 2004 letter from the Department makes clear that Petitioner is ineligible because his 1992 murder convictions followed a 1979 armed-robbery conviction, and pursuant to S.C. Code Section 24-21-640, a defendant convicted of a violent crime who has previously been convicted of another violent crime is not eligible for parole. Accordingly, Petitioner received the limited process required by the Federal Constitution for a parole-eligibility determination. View "Thomas Torrence v. Scott Lewis" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to transporting child pornography. The district court sentenced him to twelve years in prison and lifetime supervised release, subject to certain conditions. Defendant has struggled to comply with the conditions, returning to prison three times for violating them. Defendant challenged the sentence imposed after his third revocation of supervised release. He argued that the court erred in reimposing a special condition limiting his access to pornography (broadly defined), and in imposing a plainly unreasonable 24-month prison term.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s order rejecting Defendant’s objection to the condition, vacated the judgment, and remanded for resentencing. The district court based the revocation sentence on three special-condition violations: Defendant’s possession of a smartphone, his possession of five adult pornographic movies, and his unapproved contact with two minors. The court noted its fear that Defendant’s “getting a smartphone and accessing adult pornography” would soon “lapse into something else.” It also emphasized that Special Condition Nine, “[n]ot viewing pornography,” was “all part of the same thing that brought you here, the child pornography.” In other words, the district court based its sentence in large part on the violation of a condition that the court now vacates as not reasonably related and overbroad. The court, therefore, held that the district court didn’t state a “proper basis” for imposing the statutory maximum, rendering the revocation sentence substantively unreasonable. View "US v. Joseph Castellano" on Justia Law