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

Defendant robbed the CresCom Bank in Conway, South Carolina. During the robbery, Council fatally shot the bank teller and the bank manager. Defendant was convicted of (1) bank robbery resulting in death (Count One); and (2) using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in a manner causing death (Count Two). The government filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. The jury found Defendant guilty on both charges. The jury unanimously recommended a sentence of death on each count. On appeal, Defendant raised four challenges to the district court’s handling of the guilt phase.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. First, the court held that the district court fulfilled its obligations under Sections 4241 and 4247. The court raised the issue of competency on its own initiative several times, including before and during a pretrial conference held roughly a year and a half before trial. Further, the court explained that Defendant’s arguments about his need for more time and the preferability of alternatives to denying his motion outright asked the court to second-guess the district court’s case-specific judgments in “areas where the district court’s comparative expertise is at its zenith and ours its nadir.” Thus, the court held district court made no reversible error in denying Defendant’s fifth continuance motion. Finally, the court explained that B at least one of Defendant’s current arguments—that the Federal Death Penalty Act makes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority by incorporating state law execution practices—was plainly available when Defendant filed his first Rule 33 motion. View "US v. Brandon Council" on Justia Law

Defendant is fifteen years into his twenty-year prison sentence for conspiring to distribute crack cocaine. A few years after he was sentenced, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the crack-to-powder cocaine disparity. If sentenced today, Smith’s mandatory minimum would be half his current sentence. Under the retroactivity provisions of the First Step Act, Defendant moved for a sentence reduction to time served. The district court denied his motion, determining that twenty years remained appropriate. Defendant appealed, claiming among other things that the district court miscalculated his Guidelines range and that our recent decision in United States v. Swain, 49 F.4th 398 (4th Cir. 2022), reveals substantive errors in the district court’s analysis.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that “The Fair Sentencing Act and First Step Act, together, are strong remedial statutes, meant to rectify disproportionate and racially disparate sentencing penalties.” The district court considered these remedial aims, as well as all other nonfrivolous arguments, before exercising its broad discretion to deny sentencing relief. Further, while the court recognized the disparity between Defendant’s new Guidelines range and his current sentence, the district court properly explained why it remained substantively reasonable. View "US v. Danny Smith" on Justia Law

Brothers pleaded guilty to conspiring to participate in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act. The district court ordered the forfeiture of various real properties and financial accounts linked to the RICO conspiracy. Several third parties came forward to claim an interest in one or more of the forfeited assets, including the brothers’ sister, Ilana Bangiyeva (“Bangiyeva”), and one brother’s wife, Irina Alishayeva (“Alishayeva”). The court rejected most of Bangiyeva’s claimed ownership interests. As to Alishayeva the court granted a life estate in and the exclusive use of one of the properties after finding that she owned a one-third interest in that property as a tenant in common with the Government, which owned the remaining two-thirds interest. Bangiyeva appealed.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the final order of forfeiture in that respect. Additionally, the Government cross-appealed, asserting that the district court erred as a matter of law in granting Alishayeva a life estate in the relevant property at the expense of the Government’s majority ownership interest. The court agreed with the Government and vacated that part of the final order of forfeiture and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that in granting Alishayeva full and exclusive use of the 110-37 69th Ave. property for the remainder of her life and marriage, the district court accorded the Government less than the full bundle of property rights that it would otherwise be entitled to as a tenant in common under New York state law. The district court was without legal authority to do so. View "US v. Ilana Bangiyeva" on Justia Law

Defendant received a 13-year sentence for Hobbs Act robbery and a related firearm offense. The Fourth Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence on procedural grounds and remanded for resentencing. At resentencing, the district court increased Defendant’s sentence by six months and ran that term consecutively to an intervening state sentence on unrelated charges. Defendant argued that he was resentenced vindictively as punishment for successfully exercising his right to appeal.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court expressly based its increased sentence on objective information post-dating Defendant’s initial sentencing – namely, Defendant’s new state convictions and his lengthy disciplinary record while incarcerated. The district court provided a careful explanation of its decision to increase Defendant’s sentence and run it consecutively to a newly imposed sentence. And it grounded this decision in objective developments post-dating Defendant’s initial sentencing. That suffices to dispel any presumption of vindictiveness that otherwise would arise. View "US v. Christopher Singletary" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court’s judgment sentencing as a career offender under Sentencing Guidelines section 4B1.1(a), in that Defendant had seven prior South Carolina felony convictions supportive of such an enhancement (including, as relevant here, four South Carolina felony convictions for distribution of cocaine base). The court then sentenced Defendant to 120 months in prison for the distribution offense — plus 60 consecutive months for the firearm offense — for an aggregate prison term totaling 180 months. On appeal, Defendant pursued four challenges to his convictions and sentence.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the “distribution” offense of South Carolina Code section 44- 53-375(B) does not criminalize the attempt offense of “attempted distribution,” but rather the completed offense of “attempted transfer” Accordingly, the court ruled that a section 44-53-375(B) distribution offense is not categorically disqualified from being treated as a Guidelines “controlled substance offense.” As a result of that ruling, Defendant’s contention that four of his prior drug distribution convictions — as punished by section 44-53-375(B) of the South Carolina Code — is without merit. The district court thus did not err by deeming Defendant to be a Guidelines career offender. View "US v. Quintin Davis" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of two crimes arising out of an elaborate ploy to intimidate an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agent into halting her efforts to collect his delinquent tax debt. On appeal, Defendant challenged the validity of both convictions along with three enhancements the district court imposed at sentencing.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that it found no reversible error in the district court’s analysis. Although Section 2J1.2(b)(1)(B) requires any personal injury to be “physical,” the Guideline does not limit the term “property damage” in the same way. And the Guideline explicitly encompasses “threatening” to cause property damage. Thus, we will not disturb the district court’s determination that, by filing a lien against the property, because Defendant “caused or threatened to cause” damage to their property. Finally, Reed contends the district court erred by applying a two-level enhancement to Count 2 for conduct “otherwise extensive in scope, planning, or preparation.” The district court relied on Defendant’s efforts to convince Nelson not to garnish his wages, his numerous frivolous legal filings in multiple States, and his “campaign of serving notarized documents on the agent” purporting to show she “personally wronged him” and owed him “millions of dollars.” View "US v. Jeffrey Reed" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 1855 after he started a brush fire that burned 70 acres of the Nantahala National Forest in western North Carolina. Defendant asserted his innocence, claiming he did not act with a culpable mental state because he thought he was setting the fire on his family’s land, not on federal government property. His arguments required the Fourth Circuit to address the scope of Section 1855’s mens rea requirement.   The Fourth Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded. The court concluded that specific knowledge of federal ownership is not required for conviction. Therefore, the Government did not have to prove that Defendant knew he was on federal land or intended to burn federal land. But the Government did have to prove that Defendant acted willfully, and an honest mistake of fact about whether he was burning brush on his own property would be a viable defense. The district court excluded testimony about Defendant’s belief that he was on his family’s property when he set the fire, thereby preventing him from presenting his primary defense to the jury. The court explained that the jury, not the Fourth Circuit, must assess the credibility of the proffered testimony and weigh it against the Government’s evidence to make the judgment regarding whether Defendant made a factual mistake sufficient to cast a reasonable doubt on the willfulness of his actions in setting the fire. View "US v. Casey Evans" on Justia Law

Defendant appeald his conviction for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). He contends that his guilty plea was invalid and that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.   The Fouth Circuit concluded that the district court did not plainly err when it accepted Defendant’s guilty plea. However, the court vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing based on the Government’s concession that Defendant should not have received two criminal history points for being on probation. The court rejected Defendant’s other contentions of sentencing error. The court explained that the district court did not err in accepting Defendant’s guilty plea, in applying the U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement at sentencing, in finding that Defendant’s state conviction supported a base offense level of twenty under U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), or in making certain factual findings at sentencing. View "US v. Montes Miller" on Justia Law

Defendant victimized over a million Americans by furthering a country-wide “scareware” scam that tricked innocent computer users into paying for unnecessary software to remedy entirely fabricated issues purported to plague their devices. An apparent fugitive—having sought for years to evade paying even a cent of the $163,167,539.95 in restitution ordered for her role in the scheme—Defendant sought vacatur of that aging monetary judgment. The district court denied Defendant’s motion.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that an arguable basis clearly supported the judgment imposed, and it cannot be said that there was a “total want of jurisdiction” or a “clear usurpation of power” such that any defect renders the judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4). Further, the court explained that Defendant’s aggregated circumstances are not extraordinary such that she is entitled to vacatur under Rule 60(b) catch-all, and the district court soundly exercised its discretion in denying her such relief. This outcome is wholly consonant with our directive to “delicately balance the sanctity of final judgments . . . and the incessant command of the court’s conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts.” Thus, the court held that the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion for vacatur under Rule 60(b)(4) and (b)(6). Accordingly, Defendant remained liable for $163,167,539.95 in restitution—an amount that would justly recompense the victims. View "FTC v. Kristy Ross" on Justia Law

The jury convicted Petitioner of the four murders, and the court sentenced him to death.3 Id. at 475. On July 1, 2021, however, his sentence was commuted to life without parole after Virginia abolished the death penalty by legislation. Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentences, but the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. On remand, the district court permitted the parties to engage in further discovery, during which Petitioner learned of additional evidence that he alleged was also Brady or Napue material. Petitioner appealed and sought a certificate of appealability on a single issue: “whether the suppression of evidence and knowing presentation of false and misleading testimony was cumulatively material” under a combined Brady and Napue analysis. The sole question on appeal is whether Petitioner can show that the evidence he cites as inappropriately suppressed under Brady and the testimony he cites as inappropriately offered under Napue was cumulatively material.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Petitioner cannot satisfy the Brady standard. The Brady and Napue evidence noted herein would have weakened certain aspects of the prosecution’s case but would not have undermined the core of the evidence against Juniper. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Brady and Napue evidence cannot “reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict” and that there is not “a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” View "Anthony Juniper v. Melvin Davis" on Justia Law