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

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, or possess with the intent to distribute controlled substances or to use a communication facility in committing and causing the facilitation of any felony controlled substance offense.The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. The court also concluded that defendant has not demonstrated he is entitled to have his conviction vacated for a new trial because he has not shown error or prejudice. In this case, the court discerned no obvious problem with the verdict form despite the use of the "and/or" construction. Furthermore, because the conspiracy conviction can stand based on the first object of the conspiracy (drug distribution), the court need not consider defendant's challenge to the verdict form's wording of the second object of the conspiracy (use of a communication facility). The court further concluded that defendant has not met his initial burden of showing that he was entitled to a Franks hearing. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not commit reversible error in holding defendant responsible for between four and eight pounds of methamphetamine in determining his base offense level, and the district court did not err by imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1. View "United States v. Seigler" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to lower his Sentencing Guidelines range. The court concluded that the Sentencing Guidelines generally prohibit courts from reducing a defendant's sentence where, as here, the original term of imprisonment is "less than the minimum of the amended guideline range." In this case, defendant was sentenced to a 180-month term of imprisonment for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. The court explained that defendant's original 180-month sentence is well below the 210-month minimum of the amended Guidelines range for his offense. The court also concluded that USSG 1B1.10(b)(2) does not irreconcilably conflict with 28 U.S.C. 991(b), and that section 1B1.10(b)(2) does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. View "United States v. Spruhan" on Justia Law

Respondent — who was civilly committed in 2015 to the custody of the Attorney General under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 as a sexually dangerous person — was properly released under government-proposed conditions that prescribe a "regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment," 18 U.S.C. 4248(e)(2). The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that respondent would be sexually dangerous to others without the conditions and that the district court did not procedurally err in imposing the conditions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Shea" on Justia Law

Defendants Young and Volious were convicted of (1) a criminal conspiracy with several objectives; (2) aiding and abetting the transportation of an explosive in interstate commerce to kill an individual; (3) aiding and abetting the mailing of a non-mailable item with intent to kill; and (4) aiding and abetting the carrying of an explosive during the commission of a felony. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their plan to kill Young's ex-wife by mailing her a bomb.The Fourth Circuit concluded that, as a matter of law, an inert bomb that contains explosives qualifies as a nonmailable item under 18 U.S.C. 1716, and that sufficient evidence supported defendants' convictions for aiding and abetting the mailing of a nonmailable item. Furthermore, because mailing a nonmailable item with intent to kill under section 1716(j) was the predicate felony, the court upheld the jury's convictions for aiding and abetting the carrying of an explosive during the commission of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 844(h). Finally, the court rejected Volious's challenges to the indictment, the jury instructions, and the district court's denial of his pre-trial motion to sever. View "United States v. Young" on Justia Law

Movant seeks authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 application based on the holding in Davis v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), that the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)'s crime-of-violence definition was unconstitutionally vague. The Fourth Circuit joined its sister circuits in holding that Davis applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. The court also found that movant has stated a plausible claim for relief that warrants review by a district court. Accordingly, the court granted the motion. View "In re: Dearnta Thomas" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was convicted in 1993 for misdemeanor assault and battery of a family member, he was prohibited for life under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) from possessing a firearm unless he obtains a pardon or an expungement of his conviction. Plaintiff filed suit seeking a declaration that section 922(g)(9) is unconstitutional as applied to him.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, holding that section 922(g)(9) is constitutional as applied to plaintiff. The court applied a two-prong approach in considering as-applied Second Amendment challenges. First, the court assumed without deciding that domestic violence misdemeanants are entitled to some degree of Second Amendment protection. Second, the court applied intermediate scrutiny to consider plaintiff's challenge. Applying United States v. Staten, 666 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 2011), which rejected an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to section 922(g)(9), the court concluded that the evidence showed "a reasonable fit" between the statute and the substantial governmental objective of reducing domestic gun violence. In reaching this conclusion, the court adopted the approach of its sister circuits and declined to read into the statute an exception for good behavior or for the passage of time. View "Harley v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in an action where defendants were found liable by a jury for multiple violations of the False Claims Act (FCA). The district court denied defendants' post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, and entered judgment against all three defendants.The court concluded that defendants offered no argument or evidence that required the district court to grant them judgment as a matter of law. Rather, based on all of the evidence presented at trial, a reasonable jury could conclude that defendants willfully paid commissions to independent contractors and, accordingly, that they knowingly violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. The court rejected defendants' contention that commissions to salespeople can never constitute kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute. The court explained that no language in the statute so provides and federal appellate courts have frequently, and indeed invariably, upheld Anti-Kickback Statute violations based on commission payments to third parties. The court rejected defendants' claims of instructional error, and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of certain experts. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting the prejudgment writ of attachment. View "United States v. Mallory" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court found that the district court's explanation for applying the leadership enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b) precludes meaningful appellate review. The court found no basis in the record for concluding that the district court considered the seven factors for sentencing defendant as a "manager" or "supervisor." In this case, the district court cited no facts regarding defendant's instruction for another person to collect money on his behalf or for others to move money for him from prison. Furthermore, it was unclear as to what evidence the district court was referring to and why it supported the conclusion that defendant managed or supervised his sister to accept money on his behalf from prison. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court committed procedural error under United States v. Chambers, 985 F.2d 1263, 1267 (4th Cir. 1993).Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not clearly err by determining that defendant recklessly created a sufficiently substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person. Therefore, the district court did not err by applying a sentencing enhancement for reckless flight under USSG 3C1.2. The court remanded for further fact-finding and resentencing. View "United States v. Burnley" on Justia Law

A district court's finding of whether a particular false statement or omission in a warrant affidavit was made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth is a factual one, subject to reversal only upon an appellate finding of clear error.The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction, pursuant to a plea agreement, for intent to distribute a quantity of hydrocodone. The court upheld the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence that was seized pursuant to warrants authorizing searches of his residence, automobile, and mobile device in connection with a robbery. Because the court found no clear error in the district court's factual findings regarding the Franks intentionality prong, the court rejected defendant's challenges and need not reach the materiality prong. Likewise, the court need not reach defendant's Lull-premised contention that all of the co-suspect's statements should be removed from the affidavit and that the affidavit, so altered, is insufficient to establish probable cause. The court also concluded that the district court did not commit clear error in its remaining findings of fact. In this case, the district court expressly credited the detective's testimony that the robbery co-suspect provided information that was found to be credible based on it having been corroborated. View "United States v. Pulley" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's 36-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after commission of an aggravated felony. The court held that there was no error in the district court's application of a six-level sentencing enhancement for a prior felony conviction with a sentence exceeding one year and one month under USSG 2L1.2(b)(2)(C). In this case, defendant was sentenced to 6-17 months in prison for his 2018 North Carolina offenses and, under North Carolina's Justice Reinvestment Act of 2011, the last nine months of that sentence was to be served in post-release supervision. The court concluded that defendant's argument, that a post-release supervision term is the functional equivalent of a suspended sentence and should not be included in the determination of the maximum term of imprisonment imposed, is foreclosed by United States v. Barlow, 811 F.3d 133, 137 (4th Cir. 2015). View "United States v. Velasquez-Canales" on Justia Law