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

In the case brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the defendant, Reshod Jamar Everett, appealed his multiple convictions and sentences for six drug distribution and firearms offenses. The charges arose from his involvement in extensive criminal activities related to drugs and firearms in Cumberland County, North Carolina. Everett unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence seized from his residence, claiming that the authorities violated the "protective sweep" exception to the Fourth Amendment's search warrant mandate. He was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 480 months in prison, plus supervised release.On appeal, Everett challenged the denial of his suppression motion, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting three of his convictions, and his 480-month prison sentence. The Court of Appeals rejected each of Everett's contentions and affirmed the lower court's decision. It found that the protective sweep of Everett's residence was justified due to the circumstances, including the fact that Everett was a substantial drug dealer with a known connection to firearms. The Court also held that there was substantial evidence to support Everett's convictions, even under a plain error review. Finally, it concluded that Everett's 480-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable, given the seriousness of his offenses, his conduct between the time of the offenses and sentencing, and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. View "United States v. Everett" on Justia Law

In this case, defendant Theodore Carrington appealed from the district court's order finding him "subject to the [civil-commitment] provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4246," as well as alleging that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Carrington's claims on the merits. The district court's order was neither a final judgment nor an appealable collateral order.Carrington had been indicted for transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce. His erratic behavior during his detention and arraignment hearing led to a motion for a competency evaluation under § 4241(a) and (b), which concluded that Carrington was mentally incompetent to stand trial. He was subsequently committed to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization and treatment under § 4241(d)(1), with the intention to restore his competency for trial. Months later, the government filed a certificate for civil commitment under § 4246 in a different district court.Carrington argued that the delay in his evaluation process rendered the district court's order invalid and that this rendered him no longer in the Attorney General’s legitimate custody when the court made its finding. However, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear these claims, as the district court's order was not a final judgment nor an appealable collateral order. Furthermore, the court determined that the district court's finding that Carrington was "subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4246" had no legal effect on Carrington's continued custody or eventual civil commitment, and therefore was not an appealable collateral order. As such, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Carrington" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Trezith Smart, appealed his drug-trafficking convictions, arguing that his prosecution violated the Speedy Trial Act and that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence from two traffic stops. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Smart's arguments, affirming his conviction.With respect to the Speedy Trial Act claim, the court determined that sufficient time was excluded under the Act's provisions to reduce the number of days between Smart's initial appearance and his arraignment on the superseding indictment to 70. Specifically, the court pointed to the delay caused by a continuance granted when Smart's attorney withdrew due to a conflict of interest. The court found that the continuance served the "ends of justice" and the court had set forth its reasoning on record, thereby meeting the requirements of the Act.Regarding the motion to suppress evidence from the two traffic stops, the court held that both stops were constitutional. The court found that the officer who conducted the first stop had a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, justifying the extension of the stop and the deployment of a drug-sniffing dog. The court also found that the second stop was justified by the suspicious movements of Smart, including his handling of a trash bag that was later found to contain cocaine residue.The court thus affirmed Smart's drug-trafficking convictions. View "United States v. Smart" on Justia Law

In this case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, defendant Martrey Antwain Newby, who was initially sentenced for six non-violent drug crimes, appealed his sentence modification under the First Step Act of 2018. The district court had included discretionary conditions of supervised release in its written judgment that were not orally announced during the sentencing hearing, which was considered to be an error according to a precedent set by United States v. Rogers (2020). The main issue in this appeal was that the court during Newby's resentencing under the First Step Act, carried forward the same conditions of supervised release that were not orally announced in the initial sentencing hearing.The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court could not have imposed any new discretionary conditions of supervised release in Newby’s First Step Act proceeding, as the only type of modified sentence authorized by the First Step Act is a reduced one. The court also noted that Newby's conditions of supervised release which were never announced in his presence and were part of his written judgment, were nullities according to the Rogers precedent. The court argued that because these conditions were never imposed, they could not be carried forward in the district court's amended judgment.The Fourth Circuit ultimately vacated the amended judgment and remanded for resentencing, upholding the principle that discretionary conditions of supervised release must be orally announced during the sentencing hearing. This decision may be specific to the unique circumstances of this case and may not necessarily apply to all cases involving the First Step Act or conditions of supervised release. View "US v. Newby" on Justia Law

The case involves defendant Anthony Gross, who was convicted for unlawful possession of a firearm after shooting and injuring a man in his family's driveway. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina sentenced Gross to 63 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Gross appealed his sentencing, challenging the court's calculation of the sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. He disputed the application of a sentencing enhancement for causing "serious bodily injury" and the use of the aggravated assault guideline. Gross also argued that the court should review its finding of serious bodily injury de novo (from the beginning).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court's finding of serious bodily injury should be reviewed for clear error rather than de novo. The court reasoned that adopting a de novo standard would challenge the authority of fact-finders. The court found that the district court did not err in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines, stating that the injury inflicted by Gross on the victim involved "extreme physical pain," which is sufficient to classify as "serious bodily injury" under the Guidelines.Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision to apply the aggravated assault guideline, as the victim had indeed sustained serious bodily injury. The court underscored the importance of deference to the district court's fact-finding role, emphasizing that it is not the role of the appellate court to reassess the district court's factual findings. The court concluded that the evidence presented was ample for the district court to find that the victim had sustained serious bodily injury, thus affirming Gross's sentence. View "United States v. Gross" on Justia Law

The case concerned Everett Maynard, a police officer in West Virginia, who was convicted of deprivation of rights under color of law. This conviction was based on his use of excessive force against an arrestee, Robert Wilfong, which resulted in Wilfong being hospitalized with a broken nose and lacerations on his upper head. During the trial, witnesses were required to wear face masks due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Maynard appealed his conviction, arguing that the mask requirement violated his Sixth Amendment rights, and that the district court erred in applying sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice and for causing "serious bodily injury."The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. It held that the mask requirement did not violate Maynard's Sixth Amendment right, as the protection against the spread of COVID-19 is an important public policy interest and the reliability of the witnesses’ testimony was assured. This was because the witnesses were under oath, cross-examined, and the jury could observe their demeanor. The court also found no error in the application of sentencing enhancements. The court agreed with the district court's finding that the injuries inflicted on Wilfong constituted "serious bodily injury," and affirmed the application of the obstruction of justice enhancement, finding that a defendant's perjurious testimony at trial is relevant to sentencing because it reflects on a defendant’s criminal history, willingness to obey the law, and general character. View "US v. Maynard" on Justia Law

The court case involves defendants Juan Alberto Ortiz-Orellana and Minor Perez-Chach, who were convicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering statute (VICAR). Ortiz and Perez were part of a gang known as MS-13 and were separately charged with murders related to their involvement in the gang in Maryland. Ortiz was also convicted of VICAR conspiracy to commit murder, discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and murder resulting from the same crime. Perez, on the other hand, was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and an alien in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Both defendants appealed their convictions and sentences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the government seizure of historical cell site location information (CSLI) without a warrant did not violate the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights due to the good faith exception. The court also upheld the use of summary exhibits and denied the defendants' claim that their sentences were substantially unreasonable. The court agreed with Ortiz that his firearm convictions must be vacated because the underlying offenses for each VICAR count could not qualify as a "crime of violence" after a recent ruling. The court also rejected Ortiz's claim that his RICO and VICAR convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. As a result, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for resentencing on certain counts. View "US v. Ortiz-Orellana" on Justia Law

The case involves the appellant, Reggie Pettus, who pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony. The controversy revolves around the sentencing of Pettus by the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Pettus challenged his sentence on four grounds. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found one of his challenges to be meritorious, leading to the vacating of the district court’s judgment and remanding the case for resentencing.The main issue of discussion in the appeal was the district court's application of an obstruction of justice enhancement to Pettus's sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court did not provide a sufficient explanation of its rationale for applying the enhancement, leaving the appellate court unable to conduct meaningful review. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for resentencing with a clear rationale for any applied enhancements. The court also addressed other issues that may arise during resentencing, including the application of a robbery cross-reference and objections to the proposed conditions of supervised release. View "US v. Pettus" on Justia Law

The case involves Richard Lewis, a man convicted in 2004 for conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs and unlawful firearm possession. Lewis began serving two concurrent 5-year terms of supervised release in 2010 after serving roughly seven years in prison. During the supervised release, Lewis was arrested and convicted under state law for three counts of manufacturing or distributing illegal drugs and sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment. Based on these violations, the district court revoked Lewis’s supervised release and sentenced him to 20 months’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively to his state sentence. Lewis appealed, arguing that the district court improperly considered the need for punishment and the seriousness of the violation, which he contended are factors prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed with Lewis's arguments. It held that the district court did not base Lewis's revocation sentence predominantly on the retributive factor, and the sentence was not plainly unreasonable. It also rejected Lewis's argument that Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines must be struck down as inconsistent with § 3583(e). The Court explained that Lewis's argument relied on the incorrect premise that "the offense" in § 3553(a) should be read as including the defendant’s supervised release violation. The Court affirmed the district court's revocation sentence. View "US v. Lewis" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit involving four defendants—Dricko Dashon Huskey, Renaire Roshique Lewis, Jr., Alandus Montrell Smith, and Jonathan Wray—all were members of the United Blood Nations (UBN) gang and were charged with conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act and related crimes. They were all found guilty following a trial. The defendants appealed their convictions and sentences, alleging various procedural and substantive errors. The Court of Appeals, after considering each of the defendants' arguments, affirmed the district court's judgments. The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions, and that the defendants' challenges to certain evidentiary rulings, closing arguments, jury instructions, and sentencing decisions lacked merit. View "US v. Huskey" on Justia Law