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

In explaining defendant's original sentence, the district court's order denying defendant's 18 U.S.C. 3582 motion referred to the government's motion under USSG 5K1.1 based on defendant's substantial assistance.The Fourth Circuit circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to seal the order referring to defendant's assistance, because it was necessary to protect defendant from harm. In this case, defendant's request implicates the public's interest in accessing judicial records, the government's interest in protecting cooperating defendants in federal custody, and defendant's interest in his own safety. Furthermore, the district court ignored facts showing that defendant faces a heightened risk of harm in prison and failed to consider the increased risks that all government cooperators now face due to the advent of electronic filing and the use of the internet to identify cooperators. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, along with simple possession of a smaller quantity. The court agreed with defendant that the district court erred in permitting the government to deviate from the order of closing arguments prescribed in Rule 29.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court explained that the district court's decision to allow the government to waive its initial closing argument—yet retain the opportunity to rebut defendant's—violates the letter and spirit of that rule, inasmuch as it impairs a defendant's ability to rebut the government's arguments in the prescribed manner. However, the court held that this error did not prejudice defendant in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the verdict. Furthermore, the court found no error with respect to defendant's remaining claims. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a condition of supervised release requiring defendant to comply with the rules of his sex-offender treatment program, which ban him from viewing any materials that sexually arouse him. The court held that the ban is permissible under 18 U.S.C. 3583(d) and is not overbroad because the district court made an individualized assessment, based on the testimony of defendant's treatment provider, that it was necessary. Furthermore, it is enforced in a way that avoids the issues with which the vagueness doctrine is concerned, and it is not an impermissible delegation because only the district court will decide whether defendant violated his conditions of release. View "United States v. Van Donk" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit reversed defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that 22 of his conditions for supervised release are inconsistent with his oral sentence and therefore void. In this case, the written judgment's 22 "standard" conditions are not part of defendant's sentence because the district court did not pronounce them orally at his sentencing hearing. The court explained that the requirement that discretionary conditions be pronounced in open court gives defendants a chance to object to conditions that are not tailored to their individual circumstances and ensures that they will be imposed only after consideration of the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. 3583(d). View "United States v. Rogers" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit denied petitions for review of the BIA's final order of removal. Applying the modified categorical approach, the court held that defendant's prior conviction for distribution of cocaine under Virginia Code 18.2-248, including distribution of that substance as an accommodation under Virginia Code 18.2-248(D), satisfies the federal definitions of an "aggravated felony" and of a crime "relating to a controlled substance" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reconsider. View "Cucalon v. Barr" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for possessing a firearm as a felon and sentenced to 63 months' imprisonment and a three-year period of supervised release. The district court additionally recommended, without explanation, that defendant receive addiction treatment while incarcerated and ordered, as a special condition of his supervised release, that defendant participate in an addiction treatment program.The Fourth Circuit held that defendant's sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation for imposing as a special condition of supervised release the requirement of addiction treatment. The court also held that the district court failed to address defendant's nonfrivolous mitigation arguments. Therefore, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release and resulting sentence. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding the government proved he committed the assault underlying the supervised release violation; the district court did not commit plain error by adopting the violation report when announcing defendant committed Violation One; and, even if the district court erred in sentencing defendant for a Grade A violation, the error was harmless. View "United States v. Doctor" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(1) and to committing a felony offense involving a minor (specifically, producing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251) while being required to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2260A.Although the court agreed with defendant that his appeal fell outside the scope of his waiver, the court rejected defendant's contention that section 2260A cannot support a conviction. The court concluded that section 2260A more closely resembles an offense rather than an enhancement. On its face, section 2260A includes three elements: a defendant (1) must be required to register as a sex offender and (2) must commit one of its sixteen enumerated offenses, which (3) must involve a minor. Whereas, an enhancement may only include two elements. View "United States v. Beck" on Justia Law

Defendants Benson, Brown, and Wallace were convicted of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in a crime of violence resulting in murder. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not err in permitting the challenged testimony under either Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A) or 804(b)(3), and that even if the district court erred, it was ultimately harmless; rejected Benson's challenges to the Government's remarks, because the Government's closing argument did not prejudice his substantial rights and the jury instruction accurately reflected the law; and held that the Government presented sufficient evidence that Wallace had advance knowledge that a codefendant would carry a gun, and the predicate offense of Hobbs Act robbery constituted a valid crime of violence for the purposes of a 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1) conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed all three convictions. View "United States v. Benson" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not violate defendant's due process rights when it failed to specify the evidence underlying its finding that he had violated his release conditions, given that the basis of the district court’s conclusion was evident from the record; held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding defendant had indeed failed to comply with those conditions; and thus affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release. However, the court held that the district court procedurally erred by failing to acknowledge its consideration of defendant's nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a lower sentence. Therefore, the court vacated defendant's sentence, remanding for resentencing. View "United States v. Patterson" on Justia Law