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

The defendant, Zavien Lenoy Canada, was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), commonly known as the "felon-in-possession" offense. On appeal, Canada made two arguments: (1) that Section 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional, and (2) that the district court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina had previously convicted Canada and imposed an enhanced sentence under the ACCA. The district court identified three previous convictions, one of which was for criminal domestic violence under South Carolina law, as the basis for the enhanced sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Canada's assertion that Section 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional. The court stated that the law has a "plainly legitimate sweep" and can be constitutionally applied in some circumstances. However, the court agreed with Canada's second argument, ruling that the district court erred in sentencing Canada under the ACCA. The court noted that one of the three convictions identified by the district court, criminal domestic violence, does not constitute a violent felony under the ACCA according to recent decisions. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for resentencing. View "US v. Canada" on Justia Law

The case involves Robert James McCabe, a former sheriff of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, who was convicted of carrying out fraud and bribery schemes with contractors concerning medical and food services for prisoners in the Norfolk Jail. Over 20 years, McCabe provided favored contractors with inside information about competing bids for the Jail’s contracts, altered and extended contracts for their benefit, and received various things of substantial value in return. McCabe was convicted of 11 federal offenses, including charges of conspiracy, honest services mail fraud, Hobbs Act extortion, and money laundering. He was sentenced to 144 months in prison, plus supervised release.McCabe appealed his convictions and sentences, raising four contentions of error. He argued that his trial was unfairly conducted before a trial of a co-defendant, that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements, that the jury instructions were incorrect, and that the court wrongly applied an 18-level sentencing enhancement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected all of McCabe’s contentions and affirmed his convictions and sentences. View "US v. McCabe" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal by Caron Nazario, an Army officer, against a judgment following a jury trial in the Eastern District of Virginia. Nazario claimed he was mistreated by police officers Joe Gutierrez and Daniel Crocker during a traffic stop. The district court ruled that the officers had probable cause to arrest Nazario for three Virginia misdemeanor offenses, which Nazario contends was an error. This error, according to Nazario, resulted in the court incorrectly awarding the officers qualified immunity on three of his constitutional claims and improperly instructing the jury on probable cause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed most of the judgment but reversed the court’s award of qualified immunity to defendant Gutierrez on Nazario’s Fourth Amendment claim for an unreasonable seizure. The court found that the officers had probable cause for a traffic infraction and a misdemeanor obstruction of justice, but not for the misdemeanor offenses of “eluding” or “failure to obey a conservator of the peace.” The court also ruled that Gutierrez's death threats against Nazario were a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, and thus, he was not entitled to qualified immunity on the unreasonable seizure claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Nazario v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Patrick Sutherland was convicted of three counts of filing false tax returns and one count of obstructing an official proceeding. He managed several insurance businesses and routed his international transactions through a Bermuda company, Stewart Technology Services (STS), which he claimed was owned and controlled by his sister. However, evidence showed that Sutherland managed all its day-to-day affairs. Between 2007 and 2011, STS sent Sutherland, his wife, or companies that he owned more than $2.1 million in wire transfers. Sutherland treated these transfers as loans or capital contributions, which are not taxable income, while STS treated them as expenses paid to Sutherland. Sutherland did not report the $2.1 million as income on his tax returns. In 2015, a federal grand jury indicted Sutherland for filing false returns and for obstructing the 2012 grand jury investigation. The jury found Sutherland guilty on all charges.Sutherland appealed his convictions, but the Court of Appeals affirmed them. He then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition to vacate his obstruction conviction and a petition for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate his tax fraud convictions. The district court denied both petitions without holding an evidentiary hearing. Sutherland appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Sutherland failed to show how the proffered testimony from his brother and a tax expert would have undermined his obstruction conviction. The court also found that Sutherland had not demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel and thus could not show an error of the most fundamental character warranting coram nobis relief. View "United States v. Sutherland" on Justia Law

The case involves Daniel Lamont Mathis, who was convicted of multiple offenses, including Hobbs Act robbery, racketeering, and violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity, all in connection with the carjacking, kidnapping, and execution-style murder of a Virginia police officer. Initially, Mathis was sentenced to four concurrent life sentences and a consecutively imposed term of 132 years’ imprisonment. However, after an appeal and the passage of the First Step Act of 2018, which amended the sentencing structure for second or subsequent convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the district court resentenced Mathis to four concurrent life sentences, plus 48 years’ imprisonment.The district court also set forth mandatory and discretionary conditions of supervised release. One of the discretionary conditions was that Mathis would be subject to warrantless search and seizure to ensure compliance with these conditions. However, the written judgment included additional language, stating that Mathis must warn any other occupants that the premises may be subject to searches pursuant to this condition.Mathis appealed, arguing that the additional language in the written judgment constituted error under United States v. Rogers and United States v. Singletary. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with Mathis, finding that the requirement to warn other occupants was inconsistent with the orally pronounced condition. The court held that this discrepancy constituted reversible error under Rogers and Singletary. As a result, the court vacated Mathis' sentence and remanded the case for a full resentencing. View "US v. Mathis" on Justia Law

The case involves Ronald Cox, who was convicted of first-degree murder and three firearm offenses based primarily on the testimony of a jailhouse informant. The informant claimed that Cox and his co-defendant confessed their involvement in the murder. Cox's trial counsel declined to introduce jail records that suggested Cox and the informant were not in the same area of the jail when the alleged conversation took place. Cox sought postconviction relief on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, which was denied by the state postconviction court.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland also denied Cox's petition for habeas relief but issued a certificate of appealability on Cox's ineffective assistance claim. Cox appealed the district court's denial of his petition, and the State cross-appealed the district court's issuance of the certificate of appealability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Cox's petition. The court found no reason to dismiss the certificate of appealability and, due to the highly deferential standard governing petitions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, affirmed the district court's denial of Cox's petition. The court concluded that the state postconviction court's denial of Cox's ineffective assistance claim was not objectively unreasonable. View "Cox v. Weber" on Justia Law

Valentino Darosa was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery and related offenses. The case revolved around a robbery at Atlantic Metals Xchange, a store that buys and sells metals, coins, jewels, and currency notes. The robber, wearing a mask and gloves, handcuffed and duct-taped the store owner, Matthew Schipani, and stole several items. The robber also took Schipani’s backpack, which contained his firearm and wallet. A notebook and roll of duct tape left at the scene were found to have Darosa's fingerprint and DNA respectively.Darosa was indicted on one count of Hobbs Act robbery, one count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his vehicle and home, arguing that the search warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause. The district court denied the motion, finding that Darosa’s fingerprint on the notebook was sufficient to suspect him as the robber.At trial, the government presented evidence connecting Darosa to the crime, including his fingerprint on the notebook, his DNA on the roll of duct tape, and items found in Darosa’s home and vehicle that were stolen from the store. The jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Darosa challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, failure to give his proposed jury instruction, and admission of certain testimony. He also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. View "US v. Darosa" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Lokheim Jeralle Campbell, who was sentenced to 28 months in prison for violating his supervised release. Campbell had previously served a term for Hobbs Act robbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence. After his release, he attempted to rob Cyril Lowery during a drug deal, which led to a revocation motion filed by his probation officer. Campbell admitted to attempted armed robbery but objected to its classification as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines Chapter 7 policy statement.The district court overruled Campbell's objection and sentenced him to 28 months' imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the 120-month sentence he had already received for the new criminal charges. Campbell appealed his revocation sentence, arguing that the district court incorrectly determined that his attempted armed robbery violation qualified as a crime of violence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that South Carolina attempted armed robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the residual clause in the Sentencing Guidelines. The court reasoned that since the completed crime of armed robbery is categorically a crime of violence, attempts to commit such a crime similarly qualify. The court also noted that the Guidelines' commentary, which includes inchoate crimes in the definition of a crime of violence, is consistent with the language of the guideline. Therefore, the district court did not err in determining that Campbell's conduct constituted a Grade A violation of his supervised release. View "US v. Campbell" on Justia Law

David Orlando Marquez Cruz, a Salvadoran national and lawful permanent resident of the United States, was convicted of attempted second degree child sexual abuse under Washington, D.C., law. The conviction stemmed from a sexual relationship he had with a fifteen-year-old child. Following his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) on the grounds of being a noncitizen convicted of a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment, and as an aggravated felon. Cruz denied that he was removable and requested that his removal be cancelled as a matter of discretion.The immigration judge found Cruz removable based on his conviction of a crime of child abuse, but dismissed the aggravated felony removal charge. The judge declined to cancel Cruz’s removal and ordered him removed. Cruz appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), challenging the immigration judge’s finding that his D.C. conviction qualified as a crime of child abuse. The BIA agreed with the immigration judge and dismissed the appeal. Cruz then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for review.The Fourth Circuit held that Cruz’s conviction for attempted second degree child sexual abuse under D.C. law qualifies as a removable crime of child abuse. The court rejected Cruz’s arguments that a crime of child abuse under the INA does not cover attempts and that statutes imposing strict liability as to a victim’s age cannot satisfy the mens rea requirement because they do not require a culpable mental state. The court concluded that a crime of child abuse requires a culpable mens rea and an actus reus of conduct that either injures a child or creates a sufficiently high risk that a child will be harmed. The court denied Cruz's petition for review. View "Marquez Cruz v. Garland" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of Ghanaian investors who placed their funds with a Ghanaian private investment firm, Gold Coast, owned by the Nduom family, who are domiciled in Virginia. The Nduom family allegedly used a network of shell companies in Ghana and the United States to illicitly transfer the investors' funds out of their reach. The investors sued in a federal district court in Virginia, invoking a provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) that authorizes a private cause of action for any person injured in his business or property by a violation of RICO’s substantive prohibitions.The district court dismissed the action, ruling that the plaintiffs had not alleged a domestic injury, which is a requirement for a private RICO plaintiff. The court considered the residency of the plaintiffs and the location of the money when it was misappropriated, both of which were in Ghana. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ state law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as there was no diversity jurisdiction over the claims and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims after dismissing the only federal claim in the case.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court agreed that the plaintiffs had not alleged a domestic injury, which is a requirement for a private RICO plaintiff. The court noted that the case involved Ghanaian victims who entrusted Ghanaian funds to a Ghanaian entity, with no expectation that their money would end up in the United States. The defendants’ unilateral use of American entities to complete their scheme did not domesticate an otherwise foreign injury. View "Percival Partners Limited v. Paa Nduom" on Justia Law