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

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for receipt, possession, and transportation of child pornography. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during the search of defendant's computer where, even if the search was not proper under the private search exception, the denial of the motion to dismiss should be affirmed under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.The court rejected defendant's multiplicity claim, holding that any overlap between counts 3, 4, and 5 and count 7 was much too small to warrant the finding that the offense conduct charged in count 7 was in fact the same as that charged in the receipt counts. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that defendant transported a pornographic video under count 6, and for receipt of child pornography in counts 3, 4, and 5. View "United States v. Fall" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced to 121 months in prison, as well as a lifetime of supervised release, for transporting and possessing child pornography. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment with respect to the special assessments under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.However, the court held that the district court plainly erred under circuit precedent by failing to explain the computer-related special conditions of supervised release. Accordingly, the court vacated the conditions as procedurally unreasonable and remanded in part for resentencing. View "United States v. McMiller" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that the Baltimore Police Department conducted a warrantless search when it used a cell site simulator to locate him. In 2014, the police department used a Hailstorm cell site simulator to locate plaintiff's cell phone and thus defendant.Absent a more detailed understanding of the Hailstorm simulator's configuration and surveillance capabilities, the Fourth Circuit could not address the issues necessary for resolution of this case. Therefore, the court remanded for further factfinding into the characteristics of the Hailstorm cell site simulator. View "Andrews v. Baltimore City Police Department" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person previously convicted of a felony. The Fourth Circuit held that defendant's guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently made because he did not understand the essential elements of the offense to which he pled guilty. In this case, the district court accepted defendant's plea without giving him notice of an element of the offense and the error was structural. Therefore, the court vacated the guilty plea and convictions, remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. Gary" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted by a jury of several charges related to their participation in the Black Guerilla Family's (BGF) Greenmount Regime, a violent street and prison gang in Baltimore. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in failing to hold a Remmer hearing to determine whether the reported incident by a juror -- that family members or friends of defendants had used cell phones to take photographs of the jurors in a public area of the courthouse -- prejudiced the jurors and affected their ability to impartially consider the evidence. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to conduct a Remmer hearing. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of an indictment alleging that defendant violated the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The court held that binding precedent establishes that application of SORNA to defendant does not violate the nondelegation doctrine or the ex post facto clause.In this case, the district court correctly found that the application of SORNA to sex offenders, like defendant, whose offenses predate Congress's enactment of SORNA, does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Furthermore, the court rejected defendant's ex post facto theories, challenging the application of the criminal sanctions of 18 U.S.C. 2250(a) to pre-SORNA offenders, and alleging that SORNA's registration requirement is itself so punitive that it constitutes punishment that cannot constitutionally be applied to pre-SORNA offenders. Finally, the court held that the doctrine of constitutional avoidance was inapplicable here. View "United States v. Wass" on Justia Law

A conspiracy that involves the distribution of 50 or more grams of crack cocaine, which is a "covered offense" under the First Step Act of 2018 because the penalties for it were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act, remains a covered offense if the conspiracy also charges distribution of powder cocaine, the penalties for which were not modified.In this case, defendant pleaded guilty to knowingly and willfully conspiring with others to unlawfully possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine and 5 kilograms or more of powder cocaine. Because defendant's sentence involved a covered offense under Section 404(a) and Section 404(c)'s limitations do not apply, the district court should have reviewed defendant's motion on the merits, applying its discretion under Sections 404(b) and (c). Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Gravatt" on Justia Law

Drugs distributed for the "personal use" of an accomplice may be included as relevant conduct for the crime of aiding-and-abetting the distribution of a controlled substance. The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of aiding-and-abetting the distribution of methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not err in including quantities that the accomplice used recreationally in defendant's sentence. The court also held that the district court did not commit clear error in its sentencing analysis, rejecting defendant's claims to the contrary. View "United States v. Williamson" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence as an armed career criminal subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that reliance in his 2019 sentencing on a prior conviction that had not been designated as an Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) predicate in his 2008 presentence report violated United States v. Hodge, 902 F.3d 420 (4th Cir. 2018).The court held that Hodge was not controlling in this case, because Hodge is grounded on the defendant's lack of notice and opportunity to contest an ACCA predicate identified for the first time during a collateral proceeding. In this case, defendant had both notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge the designated predicate convictions prior to the resentencing hearing. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that, taken together, the documents demonstrated that defendant was in fact convicted of unlawful wounding in 1979. Furthermore, a conviction of Virginia Code 18.2-51 is a violent felony for the purpose of applying ACCA's sentencing enhancement, as it involves the use of physical force required by 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(i). View "United States v. Rumley" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 24-month sentence for illegally reentering the United States subsequent to conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2).The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that defendant's prior conviction for Texas burglary is a burglary offense under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G), and was therefore an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the court held that the district court committed a procedural error in applying the 2016 Guidelines Manual at sentencing and the error was not harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Moreno Pena" on Justia Law