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

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Defendant Saint Louis and Tulin's convictions for charges stemming from their involvement in the kidnappings of two Americans in Haiti. The court agreed with the district court's observation that, although it certainly was not a perfect trial, the issues raised by defendants ultimately did not warrant reversal. The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence of a codefendant's out-of-court identification of Tulin; by denying defendants' motion for a mistrial based on the introduction of testimony about a previous sexual assault by someone else; by violating Tulin's rights under the Confrontation Clause; by denying him a fair trial; by determining that the weight of the evidence did not warrant a new trial; and by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for inflicting serious bodily injury. View "United States v. Saint Louis" on Justia Law

Cohen, as the president and chairman of companies that sold insurance to those in the entertainment industry, was obliged to submit regular financial statements to insurance regulators. Beginning in 2008, Cohen engaged in a scheme to defraud policyholders and the public. Cohen created fraudulent financial documents and sent fraudulent representations to auditing firms and others, securing favorable opinions on the financial standing of his companies, which received more than $100,000,000 in premiums. Prosecutors secured a 31-count indictment, alleging that Cohen’s arrest upended his intentions to harm public officials. Cohen had purchased a long-range tactical rifle, plus ammunition and a night vision device and had researched homemade bombs, purchased ammonium nitrate and made recordings about plans to attack public officials. As his scheme unraveled, Cohen threatened witnesses. Cohen, who represented himself during most proceedings, eventually pleaded guilty to wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, making false statements to insurance regulators, and obstruction of justice. Cohen was sentenced to 444 months in prison. The Fourth Circuit upheld Cohen’s appeal waiver and dismissed certain claims. The court rejected, on the merits, claims that the district court erred in failing to conduct a Farmer hearing on his asset seizure allegations and that Cohen’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was contravened by the magistrate’s denial of his request to revoke his pro se status and have a lawyer appointed for his final sentencing hearing. View "United States v. Cohen" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for providing and conspiring to provide material support to terrorists, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2339A, and conspiring and attempting to destroy an aircraft of the United States Armed Forces, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 32. Defendant was convicted for acts associated with an attack on an Afghan Border Police post at Camp Leyza. As a preliminary matter, the court held that it had jurisdiction to determine whether defendant qualified as a POW and was entitled to combatant immunity under the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, irrespective of Army Regulation 190-8. On the merits, the court held that defendant was not entitled to combatant immunity under the Convention where the conflict in Afghanistan was not an international armed conflict. Consequently, because defendant did not qualify for combatant immunity pursuant to the Third Geneva Convention, he did not qualify for the common law defense of public authority. The court also held that section 32 clearly applied to otherwise lawful military actions committed during armed conflicts. In this case, defendant was convicted of attempting to fire anti-aircraft weapons at U.S. military helicopters, an attack that fell under the plain language of section 32. View "United States v. Hamidullin" on Justia Law

Ramirez, a citizen of El Salvador, first entered the U.S. in 1996 at age 17. Nearly 20 years later, Ramirez was placed in removal proceedings, charged with being present without being admitted or paroled under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Ramirez applied for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), 111 Stat. 2160, 2196–2199 (1997), which allows certain nationals from designated countries to apply for suspension of deportation or special rule cancellation of removal and adjust their status to permanent residency. To qualify under NACARA, an alien ordinarily must establish at least seven years of continuous presence in the U.S. but an applicant who is inadmissible or removable for having committed a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) must establish at least 10 years of continuous presence after becoming inadmissible or removable. In 2012, Ramirez was convicted of petit larceny and obstruction of justice. The Board of Immigration Appeals found him ineligible for NACARA relief. The Fourth Circuit vacated the order of removal, holding that obstruction of justice under Virginia law is not a CIMT because it may be committed without fraud, deception, or any other aggravating element that shocks the public conscience. The court directed the government to facilitate Ramirez’s return to the United States to participate in further proceedings. View "Ramirez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of witness tampering, conspiracy to commit witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where a reasonable jury could have found that defendant corruptly persuaded the witness to alter his testimony. View "United States v. Edlind" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of witness tampering, conspiracy to commit witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where a reasonable jury could have found that defendant corruptly persuaded the witness to alter his testimony. View "United States v. Edlind" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that defendant was no longer qualified as a sexually dangerous person. In this case, the district court was presented with two plausible theories of the case, both of which were supported by facially credible expert evidence. The court explained that, regardless of whether it would have reached the same conclusion had it been the factfinders, the factual findings of the district court represented a permissible and reasonable interpretation of the evidence presented at the hearing. Accordingly, the court was constrained to affirm the district court's order requiring defendant's release under these circumstances. View "United States v. Wooden" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that defendant was no longer qualified as a sexually dangerous person. In this case, the district court was presented with two plausible theories of the case, both of which were supported by facially credible expert evidence. The court explained that, regardless of whether it would have reached the same conclusion had it been the factfinders, the factual findings of the district court represented a permissible and reasonable interpretation of the evidence presented at the hearing. Accordingly, the court was constrained to affirm the district court's order requiring defendant's release under these circumstances. View "United States v. Wooden" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion challenging the lawfulness of his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The court held that defendant's prior conviction for North Carolina assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury was categorically a violent felony under the force clause of the ACCA. View "United States v. Townsend" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of appellant's savings clause request and dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition. The court held that appellant satisfied the requirements of the savings clause pursuant to its decision in In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000), because a retroactive change in the law, occurring after the time for direct appeal and the filing of his first section 2255 motion, rendered his applicable mandatory minimum unduly increased, resulting in a fundamental defect in his sentence. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions that appellant's section 2241 petition be considered on the merits. View "United States v. Wheeler" on Justia Law