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

The Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment denying defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(B), as authorized by the First Step Act of 2018. The court held that the district court erred in determining that defendant was statutorily ineligible for a sentence reduction under the Act, because he had finished serving his original term of imprisonment and was currently serving a term of imprisonment for revocation of supervised release. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to consider defendant's motion in the first instance. View "United States v. Venable" on Justia Law

All defendants who are serving sentences for violations of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(iii), and who are not excluded pursuant to the expressed limitations in Section 404(c) of the First Step Act, are eligible to move for relief under that Act. District courts then "may," at their discretion, "impose a reduced sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed."The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act. The court held that 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(B) is the appropriate vehicle for a First Step Act motion, and eligibility under the Act turns on the proper interpretation of a "covered offense." The court agreed with defendant and adopted his understanding that he is eligible to seek relief under the Act because, "before August 30, 2010," he "committed" a "violation" of 21 U.S.C. 841(a) and (b)(1)(B)(iii), and "the statutory penalties" for that statute "were modified by" Section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to consider defendant's motion. View "United States v. Wirsing" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion challenging his sentence as no longer valid. The court held that defendant's predicate conviction for causing bodily injury to a witness under 18 U.S.C. 1513(b)(1) is categorically a violent Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) felony. In this case, defendant's conviction required knowing conduct that causes bodily injury to another, which categorically involved the use of violent force sufficient to bring it within the ACCA's elements clause. View "United States v. Allred" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress various ammunition and ammunition components seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant.The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. In this case, the warrant affidavit provided the magistrate with a substantial basis to conclude that defendant made terrorist threats within the meaning of W. Va. Code 61-6-24, and that evidence of this crime would be found in his home. The court also held that the alleged omissions in the warrant affidavit were immaterial to the magistrate's probable cause determination. In this case, defendant failed to demonstrate that the omitted statements were material to the magistrate's probable cause determination and thus the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a Franks hearing. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendants Taylor and Hersl, appealed their convictions and sentences for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy and substantive acts of RICO, as well as Hobbs Act robbery. Defendants' convictions stemmed from, among other things, their participation, while employed as police officers who were members of the Gun Trace Task Force (GTTF), in a conspiracy to rob citizens in the course of their police service.The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the record was sufficient to convict defendant of the charges; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' pretrial motion in limine to prohibit the government and its witnesses from using the term "robbery" during trial and by overruling their subsequent objection; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' motion for a mistrial after an outburst by a government witness and opting, instead, to strike the testimony and give the jury a curative instruction; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss the indictment; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for a new trial; the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant defendants a downward departure; and defendants' sentences were substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the firearm after he conditionally pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. The court rejected defendant's reliance on the agreement condition and held that the statutory search condition specifically provides that warrantless searches of supervisees may be undertaken by any post-release supervision officer.The court also held that, at bottom, the record supported the district court's determination that the warrantless search of defendant's apartment was not for the purpose of furthering general law enforcement goals. Rather, the officers conducted the search to ensure defendant's continued compliance with the terms of his supervision agreement. Finally, because the search of defendant's apartment complied with the statutory condition, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he conditionally pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime. The court held that the district court did not err by admitting evidence of the firearm where the district court admitted the derivative evidence not because it was the fruit of voluntary statements, but because it found that the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule rendered the derivative evidence admissible; defendant's first statements were voluntary and the statements admitting possession of the gun were involuntary; and defendant's admission to the first bag of marijuana gave the officer the reasonable suspicion to justify detaining defendant and investigating further. In this case, before defendant made any involuntary admissions, the officer believed that he possessed a gun, had the probable cause necessary to search the car, and intended to find the gun. View "United States v. Alston" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). The court held that the North Carolina Supreme Court would hold that a conditional-discharge plea is not a conviction for purposes of section 921 and 922. Therefore, defendant was not a felon and his federal felon-in-possession conviction could not stand. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of habeas relief, holding that a juror's external communication with her pastor regarding the death penalty was not harmless. Given how Federal Rule of Evidence 606 limits the presentation of evidence in these circumstances, the court held that it was especially important for it to view the record practically and holistically when considering the effect that a juror's misconduct reasonably may be taken to have had upon the jury's decision. In this case, the juror shared the pastor's counsel with the other jurors in an apparent effort to convince someone it was okay to vote for the death penalty. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Barnes v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Government appealed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress a revolver found on his person. The district court reasoned that the initial stop and flashlight illumination of the men leaving the site of the shooting violated the Fourth Amendment, which rendered the later pat down illegal.The Fourth Circuit reversed and held that the officers here reacted to a perilous active-shooter situation, arriving on scene within 35 seconds of hearing multiple gunshots in a densely populated area; these exigent circumstances implicated vital governmental interests—citizen and police safety—beyond the ordinary need for law enforcement; and the officers' initial response was tailored to address these needs with minimal intrusion and thus reasonable. The court remanded for the district court to consider whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to search defendant after he disregarded their orders. View "United States v. Curry" on Justia Law