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

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon. The court was bound by its prior decision in United States v. Mungro, 754 F.3d 267, 272 (4th Cir. 2014), holding that the North Carolina breaking and entering statute "sweeps no more broadly than the generic elements of burglary" and therefore its violation qualifies as an Armed Career Criminal Act predicate conviction. Therefore, defendant's previous conviction for breaking and entering, in violation of North Carolina General Statutes 14-54, qualifies as an ACCA predicate conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). View "United States v. Dodge" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of a firearm after defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon. The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when he stopped and frisked defendant. In this case, a bystander called 911 to report a large fight and assault, with a victim knocked out laying on the ground; the area was known to be a problem area; and officers could reasonably infer from the report that the person with the gun was involved in the fight. The court rejected defendant's contention that the tip from the bystander was unreliable and that the tip insufficiently alleged illegal conduct. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Defendants Gutierrez, Baxton, and Gilmore's convictions and sentences for various charges related to their membership in the United Blood Nation (UBN) gang.The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by empaneling an anonymous jury; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying recusal; the district court did not abuse its discretion in regard to jury selection; the district court properly denied Gilmore's motion to suppress; the evidence was sufficient to support defendants' convictions for conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to issue a special jury verdict form; and the district court properly instructed the jury. The court upheld the district court's denial of Gilmore's motion for a new trial; held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's civil forfeiture findings; and held that defendants' respective sentences were not procedurally and substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Defendants Campbell, Shropshire, Wells, and Washington were convicted of charges related to their participation in a heroin-distribution conspiracy and related substantive-drug-distribution offenses. Washington was convicted of distributing heroin that resulted in the death of a young woman.The court held that the district court acted well within its discretion by admitting expert testimony on J.L.'s cause of death over Washington's objection; the district court acted within its discretion in rejecting Washington's proposed instruction; the evidence of the home-invasion robbery was properly admitted by the district court; Shropshire failed to show that clear prejudice resulted from the joint trial and the district court did not abuse its discretion; the court declined to address Shropshire's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim; and the district court acted within its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial after mitigating any risk of prejudice with a cautionary instruction. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

By an interim order dated April 2, 2020, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's decision denying defendant's motion for a reduced sentence, ruled that defendant was eligible for relief under the First Step Act, and remanded for the district court to consider whether to exercise its discretion under the Act to impose a reduced sentence. This opinion explains the reasons for the court's order.The court held that when the Fair Sentencing Act changed the quantities of crack cocaine to which 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C) applies, it "modified" the statutory penalties of that subsection for purposes of crack cocaine offenders within the meaning of the First Step Act. In this case, defendant's sentence under subsection 841(b)(1)(C) was imposed for a "covered offense," and he is eligible for a First Step Act sentence reduction. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Woodson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of 15 counts of unlawfully distributing controlled substances. Defendant's charges stemmed from his operation of a medical practice and his opioid prescription-writing practices.The Fourth Circuit agreed with defendant that, under United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 876 (4th Cir. 1994) and Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), the district court improperly admitted the testimony of patients whose treatment by defendant was not the basis for any of the charges in the indictment. The court held that the testimony was not necessary to complete the story of the charged offenses under Kennedy, and was not otherwise admissible under Rule 404(b). Furthermore, because the government did not carry its burden of establishing that this error was harmless, the court vacated defendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Brizuela" on Justia Law

On appeal, defendant contends that the delay of over six years between the date of his federal charge and the date of his guilty plea violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Defendant also contends that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable.The Fourth Circuit held that defendant's speedy trial argument is foreclosed by his guilty plea and, in any event, failed on the merits. In this case, defendant did not know of the pending federal charge until he was arrested and thus he did not experience oppressive pretrial incarceration or anxiety during the delay. Nor does defendant assert that the delay impaired his ability to prepare a defense. Furthermore, defendant failed to show prejudice. The court also held that defendant's sentence is procedurally reasonable where the district court acted within its discretion when it heard defendant's arguments and varied downward, albeit not as far as defendant would have liked. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Macias Lozano" on Justia Law

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