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

Harry Nolan Moody was convicted in 2002 for conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. He was sentenced as a career offender to 360 months’ imprisonment. If sentenced today, Moody would no longer qualify as a career offender, and the advisory minimum would be 210 months. Moody moved for compassionate release based on this disparity, but the district court denied relief, holding that the sentencing disparity, considering Moody’s individual circumstances, didn’t constitute an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against a reduced sentence.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina initially denied Moody’s motion for compassionate release, finding that the career-offender designation only increased his offense level by one level and didn’t impact his criminal history category. Moody appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, directing the district court to reassess the drug quantity attributable to Moody and reevaluate the effect of the career-offender designation on the guidelines range.On remand, the district court again denied Moody’s motion. It found that Moody was responsible for at least 50 grams of actual methamphetamine and concluded that the sentencing disparity didn’t amount to an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. The court reasoned that Moody’s conduct fell within the enhancement’s scope and that his criminal history and risk of recidivism justified an upward variance sentence. The court also considered Moody’s age, time served, and rehabilitative efforts but found that these factors, either singly or in combination, didn’t warrant release. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that the court didn’t abuse its discretion in its analysis. View "United States v. Moody" on Justia Law

Timothy Olson, a fifth-grade teacher, used peer-to-peer software to download approximately 100 child pornography videos depicting the sexual abuse of prepubescent children. Olson admitted to downloading the videos and understanding the software due to his master's degree in information systems management. He pled guilty to transporting and possessing child pornography involving minors under twelve.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina sentenced Olson to 120 months’ imprisonment and a 30-year term of supervised release with numerous special conditions. Olson did not object to these conditions at sentencing. He later appealed, challenging six of the supervised release conditions as substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the plain error standard because Olson did not object to the conditions at the time of sentencing. The court found that each of the six challenged conditions was reasonably related to Olson’s offense, history, and characteristics, and that none involved a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary. The conditions included restrictions on interacting with felons, refraining from excessive alcohol use, submitting to suspicionless searches, avoiding places frequented by children, and not possessing children’s items without permission.The Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing these conditions. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the conditions were substantively reasonable and aligned with statutory goals of deterrence, public safety, and rehabilitation. View "U.S. v. Olson" on Justia Law

Detective Frias of the Richmond Police Department observed an Instagram video showing known gang member J.S. and others brandishing firearms at the Belt Atlantic apartment complex. The video, posted shortly before the incident, depicted two men later identified as Anthony Cornelius Brown, Jr., and Dequane Aquil McCullers. Detectives accessed live surveillance footage showing individuals matching the video’s description at the same location. Upon arrival, the officers approached the men, who attempted to walk away. Brown and McCullers were detained and frisked, leading to the discovery of firearms.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Brown and McCullers' motions to suppress the evidence of the firearms. The court found that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk the defendants based on the video and their behavior. Brown and McCullers entered conditional guilty pleas, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Brown and McCullers based on the Instagram video and their actions upon the officers' arrival. The court also found that the frisk of McCullers was justified as the officers reasonably believed he was armed. Additionally, the court ruled that the length of Brown’s detention was reasonable given the circumstances and the need to ensure officer safety. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motions to suppress. View "US v. Brown" on Justia Law

Robert Dale Ellis, after being convicted under North Carolina law for child pornography offenses, failed to register as a sex offender, leading to a federal conviction and subsequent supervised release. Ellis repeatedly violated the conditions of his supervised release, resulting in multiple revocations and re-impositions of prison terms and new supervised release conditions. His violations included unauthorized travel, failure to report to his probation officer, and non-compliance with treatment programs.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina handled Ellis' supervised release violations. The court modified his conditions multiple times, including imposing home detention and location monitoring. Despite these measures, Ellis continued to violate his release conditions, leading to further revocations and re-impositions of supervised release terms. In his latest revocation, the district court imposed two contested conditions: requiring probation officer approval for internet-capable devices and six months of location monitoring.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed Ellis' appeal, where he challenged these two conditions. Ellis argued that the device-approval condition improperly delegated judicial power, effectively banned internet use, and was overbroad. He also contended that the location-monitoring condition was not reasonably related to his sentencing factors and imposed an excessive deprivation of liberty. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that the device-approval condition did not delegate judicial power improperly and was not a complete internet ban. The court found that the condition was reasonably related to Ellis' history and characteristics and did not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary. Similarly, the location-monitoring condition was deemed reasonably related to Ellis' offense and necessary for public protection and deterrence. The court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Ellis" on Justia Law

In December 2018, law enforcement began investigating a residence in Fairmont, West Virginia, for suspected drug dealing. Officers found drug residue in the trash and observed hand-to-hand transactions. During a traffic stop, they seized marijuana and a firearm from a visitor. A search warrant executed on January 31, 2019, led to the discovery of drugs and firearms in the residence. Lamar Perdue, found trying to escape, was among those detained. A federal grand jury indicted Perdue and two others on multiple drug charges and one count of aiding and abetting possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia accepted Perdue's guilty plea to all charges without a plea agreement. During the plea hearing, the court failed to inform Perdue of the advance knowledge requirement for the firearm charge under Rosemond v. United States. Perdue was sentenced to 195 months in prison. He later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not pursuing an appeal. The district court granted the motion, allowing Perdue to appeal but did not alter his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that the district court erred by not explaining the advance knowledge requirement but found that Perdue did not show a reasonable probability that he would have pleaded differently if properly informed. The court noted that Perdue voluntarily pleaded guilty, rejecting a plea agreement to avoid cooperating against co-defendants. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the error did not affect Perdue's substantial rights. View "United States v. Perdue" on Justia Law

Randy Price was charged with possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number and possession of a firearm by a felon. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Price moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that both statutes were facially unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion regarding the felon-in-possession charge but granted it for the obliterated serial number charge, finding that the analysis required under Bruen rendered the statute an impermissible restriction on the Second Amendment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia denied Price's motion to dismiss the felon-in-possession charge but granted it for the obliterated serial number charge. The court concluded that the conduct prohibited by the statute was protected by the Second Amendment and that there was no historical tradition of firearm regulation consistent with the statute. The Government appealed the dismissal of the obliterated serial number charge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the conduct regulated by the statute does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment because a firearm with a removed, obliterated, or altered serial number is not a weapon in common use for lawful purposes. The court concluded that there is no compelling reason for a law-abiding citizen to possess such a firearm, and such weapons are primarily used for illicit purposes. Therefore, the statute's regulation of these firearms does not violate the Second Amendment. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "United States v. Price" on Justia Law

In early 2022, FBI and IRS agents investigated John Doe and his businesses for suspected wire fraud, money laundering, and tax fraud. They obtained three search warrants to search Doe’s apartment, office, and vehicle. The warrants included a filter protocol to protect potentially privileged materials. During the searches, agents seized various paper materials and electronic devices. The government later contacted Doe to assist in segregating potentially privileged material, but Doe’s counsel did not respond. Negotiations between Doe and the government failed, leading Doe to file a motion to establish a filter protocol to protect his legal privileges.The magistrate judge granted Doe’s motion to intervene but denied his substantive motion for a new filter protocol, finding that Doe did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction. The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s decision and also denied Doe’s motion, agreeing that Doe was not entitled to an injunction. Doe then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.The Fourth Circuit dismissed Doe’s appeal, holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction. The court explained that under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, it generally only has jurisdiction over final decisions of district courts. The court applied the DiBella test, which states that orders resolving pre-indictment suppression motions are not immediately appealable unless the motion is solely for the return of property and not tied to a criminal prosecution in esse. The court found that Doe’s motion was not solely for the return of property and was tied to an ongoing grand jury investigation. Therefore, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under both § 1291 and § 1292(a)(1) and dismissed the appeal. View "United State of America v. Doe" on Justia Law

Kenneth Watkins, an Atlanta-based rap musician, was convicted of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute. Investigators, suspecting drug activities linked to a Charlotte-based record label operated by Steven “Ziggy” Cloud, obtained a wiretap on Cloud’s phone. Evidence showed that Watkins was involved in drug transactions with Cloud, including three trips where couriers transported pills from Atlanta to Charlotte. The couriers, Jonquilla Sanders and Latisha Anderson, testified about their trips, with intercepted calls and other evidence linking Watkins to the drug deliveries.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina tried the case. Watkins was convicted by a jury and sentenced to ten years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $100 fine. Watkins appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of his song lyrics as evidence, the jury instructions, the calculation of drug quantity, and the denial of a downward departure in sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support Watkins’s conviction, as a rational jury could infer his knowledge and participation in the conspiracy. The court also held that the district court did not err in allowing the prosecution to question Watkins’s wife about his song lyrics, as Watkins had introduced character evidence. The court affirmed the district court’s jury instructions, finding no abuse of discretion. The court upheld the drug quantity calculation and the use of the 1-to-380-gram conversion ratio for eutylone. Finally, the court ruled that the district court’s discretionary denial of a downward departure was not reviewable. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "US v. Watkins" on Justia Law

Ahmad Hashimi was indicted on four counts in the Eastern District of Virginia, including drug-related charges and charges involving violence against his ex-girlfriend. Hashimi and his court-appointed lawyer, Bruce Johnson, had a contentious relationship, with Hashimi repeatedly complaining about poor communication and the lack of a plea deal. Despite these issues, the district court did not replace Johnson. During the trial, Johnson attempted to negotiate a plea deal for the violence charges, but the court rejected it, and the case proceeded to the jury. In his closing argument, Johnson conceded Hashimi's guilt on the violence charges without Hashimi's explicit consent, focusing his defense on the drug charges. The jury found Hashimi guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to 300 months in prison.Hashimi appealed his conviction, arguing that Johnson's concession of guilt without his consent violated his Sixth Amendment rights. The Fourth Circuit initially affirmed the conviction but reconsidered after the Supreme Court's decision in McCoy v. Louisiana, which established a defendant's right to maintain innocence. On remand, the Fourth Circuit again affirmed but allowed Hashimi to raise his claim in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Hashimi filed the motion, presenting evidence that he did not consent to the concession and highlighting his poor communication with Johnson.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Hashimi's § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing, reasoning that Hashimi did not explicitly object to the concession. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in denying the motion without a hearing. The appellate court held that the record did not conclusively show that Hashimi was informed of and consented to the concession, as required by McCoy. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case for further factual development. View "US v. Hashimi" on Justia Law

Stephen Stanko appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging one of his two South Carolina capital convictions and sentences. Stanko argued that his trial counsel, William Diggs, had a conflict of interest due to a pending ineffective assistance claim from a previous trial. Despite this, Stanko insisted on retaining Diggs for his second trial. The trial court held several hearings to ensure Stanko’s waiver of any conflict was knowing and voluntary. Stanko was convicted and sentenced to death. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding Stanko’s waiver valid.In his state post-conviction relief (PCR) petition, Stanko raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that Diggs’s conflict of interest and his performance during the penalty phase were constitutionally deficient. The PCR court rejected these claims, finding that Stanko had knowingly waived any conflict and that Diggs’s performance was within professional norms. Stanko’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina was denied.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina reviewed Stanko’s federal habeas petition and applied the deferential standard of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The court found that Stanko’s claims were either procedurally barred or meritless under AEDPA’s standards. The court also addressed Stanko’s complaints about docket management decisions, finding no merit in one and lacking jurisdiction over the other. The district court granted summary judgment for the state and denied Stanko a certificate of appealability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Stanko’s waiver of conflict-free counsel was valid and that the state court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of federal law. The court also found that Stanko’s ineffective assistance claims related to the penalty phase were procedurally barred and that Martinez v. Ryan did not apply to overcome the default. The court dismissed Stanko’s appeal regarding the district court’s denial of his Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration, as it lacked jurisdiction without a certificate of appealability. View "Stanko v. Stirling" on Justia Law