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

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion contending that his prior convictions no longer qualified as predicate offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) after the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).The court held that North Carolina common law robbery qualifies as an ACCA predicate under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019), which abrogated its prior holding in United States v. Gardner, 823 F.3d 793 (4th Cir. 2016). The court also held that a conviction under North Carolina law for being an accessory before the fact of armed robbery qualifies as a violent felony because that offense incorporates the elements of armed robbery, which itself is a violent felony. View "United States v. Dinkins" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, and possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon. The court held that defendant's prior conviction for distribution of crack cocaine in South Carolina was divisible and subject to the modified categorical approach, and the state offense elements aligned with the federal definitions. Therefore, the district court did not err in ruling that the distribution of crack cocaine conviction constitutes a predicate for the armed career criminal and career offender enhancements.The court also held that defendant's prior Georgia conviction for first-degree arson was a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act and a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines. Accordingly, defendant had the requisite predicate offenses to be sentenced as an armed career criminal under the ACCA. View "United States v. Furlow" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct a clerical error in his Pre-Sentence Report (PSR). The Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in holding that a defendant is categorically barred from relying on Rule 36 to correct a sentence tainted by a clerical error. However, the court nevertheless affirmed the district court's judgment because defendant's three remaining convictions were sufficient to sustain his classification and sentencing as a career offender under USSG 4B1.1. View "United States v. Vanderhorst" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of appellant's motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate his conviction on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. In this case, appellant's attorney erroneously advised him that, if he pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, deportation was a mere possibility that he could fight in immigration court. Rather, conspiracy to distribute cocaine was an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act and a noncitizen convicted of such a crime was subject to mandatory deportation. Therefore, counsel's performance was deficient. Furthermore, the court held that appellant was prejudice based on counsel's deficient performance, because the evidence demonstrated a reasonable probability that, had appellant known the true and certain extent of the consequences of his guilty plea, he would have refused it. View "United States v. Murillo" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence and statements under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In this case, the officer had probable cause to stop defendant and the traffic stop lasted a reasonable amount of time. The court also held that the failure to administer a Miranda warning constituted harmless error because there was an overwhelming amount of physical evidence that was properly seized that would still inculpate defendant in the eyes of any reasonable factfinder. View "United States v. Bernard" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner argued that his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment will be violated if the government retries him on murder charges in state court. Applying the strictest scrutiny review, the court held that the government failed to satisfy its high burden of showing manifest necessity for a mistrial. In this case, the record demonstrated that the government allowed the jury to be empaneled knowing that the crucial witness might not appear to testify, and the state trial court failed to consider possible alternatives to granting the government's mistrial motion. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to grant petitioner habeas relief. View "Seay v. Cannon" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit held that Chapter 313 of Title 18, and 18 U.S.C. 4248 in particular, did not authorize the district court to dismiss the section 4248 proceeding against respondent on the ground that he was found to be mentally incompetent. The court also held that section 4248 does not violate the Due Process Clause and that the risk of an erroneous deprivation of respondent's liberty interest is substantially and adequately mitigated by the broad array of procedures required for a section 4248 commitment, particularly as they apply to incompetent persons. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions that the district court promptly conduct a section 4248 hearing to determine whether respondent is sexually dangerous and therefore must be committed to the custody of the Attorney General. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 may be constitutionally applied to an unarmed assault of a victim engaged in commercial activity at his place of work. In this case, defendant admitted to physically and violently assaulting a coworker preparing packages for interstate sale and shipment because of the coworker's sexual orientation. After defendant was convicted by a jury for violating the Act, the district court granted defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal based on the grounds that the Act, as applied to defendant's conduct, exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.The Fourth Circuit reversed and held that, as applied to defendant's conduct, the Act easily fell under Congress's broad authority to regulate commerce. In this case, the victim was assaulted while preparing packages for interstate sale and shipment at an Amazon fulfillment center. Therefore, defendant's assault of the victim interfered with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim was engaged at the time of the conduct. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court held that defendant's prior Maryland conviction for assault with intent to murder qualified as a violent felony under the force clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). In this case, assault with intent to murder constituted a statutory aggravated form of assault and, coupled with a specific intent to murder, fell within the ACCA's definition of a violent felony and was a predicate offense for purposes of the ACCA. View "United States v. Battle" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's pretrial motion to suppress evidence after he was convicted of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. The court held that the warrant affidavit prepared by an officer was sufficient to establish probable cause for the magistrate to issue the search warrant.The court also affirmed the district court's imposition of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), holding that defendant's prior offense for criminal domestic violence under South Carolina law categorically qualified as violent felonies. Therefore, defendant had the three predicate convictions for purposes of the ACCA. View "United States v. Drummond" on Justia Law