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

The jury found Defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, brandishing a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, and witness tampering. On appeal, Defendant asserted four evidentiary challenges. The Fourth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions holding that Defendant’s guilt was so overwhelming that the erroneously admitted evidence did not affect the trial’s outcome.   The court agreed with Defendant that the district court erred when it allowed the victim store employees to testify about how the robberies affected their lives and when it allowed a law enforcement agent to interpret the recorded phone calls. However, the court held that the district court properly permitted the victim store employees to testify that Defendant was the decoy guy and was trying to act like he was afraid during a previous robbery. Further, the court held that the district court appropriately allowed a co-conspirator to testify that Defendant was dangerous and admitted the screenshots that the co-conspirator received of the photographs of the letters saying that he was an informant. View "US v. Charles Walker, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant, a naturalized United States citizen, received advice from counsel in 2010 that because of his newly obtained citizenship, his guilty plea to a narcotics offense would not subject him to deportation. However, Defendant's citizenship was revoked in 2016. In 2018, Defendant received a Notice to Appear informing him that he would be removed from the country because his 2010 conviction was an aggravated felony. Upon receiving that notice, he filed a collateral attack upon his 2010 guilty plea under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. The district court found that Defendant’s 2018 petition was untimely under Sec. 2255(f)(4).The court reasoned that Sec. 2255 petitions must typically be filed within one year of the date “on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” But petitions based on facts that arise after a conviction becomes final must instead be filed within one year of “the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.Defendant testified that his Alexandria-based attorney told him in 2016 that his conviction was an aggravated felony. The court found that notice alone triggered Sec. 2255(f)(4)’s limitations period. Second, even setting aside that admission, the nature of Defendant’s sentencing proceedings on July 8, 2016, put him on inquiry notice that his 2010 conviction was an aggravated felony. Therefore, the court held that the district court correctly dismissed the petition as untimely. View "US v. Jose Nunez-Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant moved for relief under Sec. 2255 after he was convicted of causing the death of another through the use of a firearm during a “crime of violence” and sentenced to death. Defendant claims that the Government failed to prove that he committed a “crime of violence.”The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Defendant's petition. The court reasoned that to support a conviction for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a “crime of violence,” the Government need only prove one qualifying predicate offense. That crime must be a felony that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” Further, the court must ask whether the “most innocent conduct” criminalized by the statute meets the definition of a “crime of violence.” In certain situations, the court applies a “variant” of the categorical approach referred to as the modified categorical approach. The court uses the modified categorical approach when the statute at issue is divisible. Divisible statutes set forth “multiple, alternative versions of the crime” with distinct elements, while indivisible statutes merely set out different means of completing the crime.The court applied the modified categorical approach. The court found that federal premeditated first-degree murder is a “crime of violence.” Moreover, federal premeditated murder requires an intentional mens rea and thus does not in any way violate Borden’s requirement. Thus, premeditated murder in violation of Sec. 1111(a) is categorically a “crime of violence.” View "US v. Richard Jackson" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court initially applied a 15-year enhancement under the Armed Career Criminals Act ("ACCA"). However, following the United States Supreme Court decisions in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) and Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016), the district court vacated the 15-year ACCA enhancement and sentenced Petitioner to time served.Petitioner then petitioned the district court for a certificate of innocence under 28 U.S.C. 2513(a). The district court declined to issue the certificate, finding Petitioner failed to meet the statutory requirements.The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Section 2513 requires a petitioner seeking a certificate of innocence to prove that his conviction was overturned because he was not guilty of the charged offense. Here, Petitioner concedes that his conviction was not overturned. Petitioner must first overturn his conviction before seeking a certificate of innocence. View "US v. Richard Moon" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of a single count of cocaine distribution. He was tried for that offense in the Court of General Sessions for Horry County, South Carolina (the “trial court”). He brought federal habeas corpus proceedings in the District of South Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Concluding that the court had not unreasonably applied the standards set forth in Strickland. The Fourth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability relative to his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the stand-up order.The trial court jury was initially unable to arrive at a verdict and requested that petitioner stand beside the enlarged image. The court inquired if petitioner's counsel had any objection. The court interjected before an objection could be lodged and directed petitioner to stand as the jury wished. The circuit court found that the PCR court unreasonably applied Strickland to the facts of the case in finding trial counsel’s performance was not deficient. The circuit court reasoned that trial counsel cannot be found to have operated within the broad scope of Strickland’s measure of competence when she only attempted — and thereby failed — to object to the stand-up order. Thus, petitioner’s trial counsel’s failure to object to the stand-up order constituted objectively deficient performance, that her performance prejudiced the defense and that she thereby rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. View "Lynel Witherspoon v. Donnie Stonebreaker" on Justia Law

Defendant argues that the district court erred in denying his suppression motion because the officers abandoned the purpose of the traffic stop and deliberately delayed their investigation so the canine unit could conduct its dog sniff. He also contends that the court clearly erred by crediting the officer’s testimony after he impeached the officer with a prior inconsistent statement.The circuit court found that though the stop could have been shorter (and begun more efficiently), it wasn’t impermissibly prolonged, and the officers’ actions were reasonably related to investigating an expired license plate. Reasoning that the acceptable length of a routine traffic stop can’t be stated with mathematical precision,” but the officers here were diligent enough to pass constitutional muster. United States v. Digiovanni, 650 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 2011).Regarding the other officer’s testimony, the circuit court was not persuaded that the district court erred in finding him credible. The district court acknowledged that the defendant impeached the officer with a prior inconsistent statement yet otherwise found the officer credible. The circuit court declined to disturb the district court’s credibility assessment. As such, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "US v. Joffrey Perez" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Although the court agreed with defendant that application of a bright-line rule based on CDC risk categories would be overly restrictive, the court concluded that the district court did not apply such a rule and otherwise did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion. The court stated, in light of the circumstances, that the district court provided sufficient explanation to allow for meaningful appellate review. In this case, the judge knew of defendant's circumstances, both favorable and unfavorable, and referenced them in the balancing of the 18 U.S.C. 3553 factors, noting that defendant had returned to the same criminal behavior after his first prison stint and that post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts did not outweigh the considerations that led the court to sentence him to 103 months in prison in the first place. View "United States v. Hargrove" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's 162-month sentence for possessing with the intent to distribute cocaine base and being a felon in possession of ammunition. The court concluded that sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the district court's finding that defendant possessed a firearm on each occasion, and that all three incidents were sufficiently connected temporally and involved a regular pattern of similar conduct: illegal possession of like-kind firearms. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err when applying a base offense level of twenty-two. Furthermore, the district court did not clearly err in applying the three-firearm enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(1)(A), and the connection-with-another-felony-offense enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Finally, the court concluded that the district court adequately addressed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. McDonald" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute 50 or more grams of methamphetamine. Defendant argued that the district court's jury instructions at his trial constructively amended his indictment by permitting the jury to convict on a basis not included in the indictment.The court previously held in United States v. Floresca, 38 F.3d 706 (4th Cir. 1994), that constructive amendments must always be reversed without reference to the four factors of plain error review. However, Floresca's reasoning and holding are inconsistent with subsequent Supreme Court opinions and thus no longer tenable. Rather, the court concluded that Supreme Court authority requires plain error review. In this case, defendant failed to establish that his conviction for possession with intent to distribute would seriously affect the fairness, integrity and public reputation of judicial proceedings. The court rejected defendant's other challenges to his conviction, concluding that the jury instructions were not duplicitous, and there was no error in the admission of the Facebook certificate and messages. View "United States v. Banks" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit held that a party, like the plaintiff here, who previously consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, but who sought to withdraw such consent before any other party consented, need not show good cause to withdraw that consent. In this case, the district court erred in requiring plaintiff to show good cause to withdraw his consent. The court saw no reason that plaintiff should not have been allowed to withdraw his consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge and concluded that, on the record, plaintiff's request to withdraw should have been allowed. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order denying plaintiff's motion; vacated the magistrate judge's order entering final judgment; and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Muhammad v. Fleming" on Justia Law