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

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Lee Hall and Mark Landersman's convictions for criminal conspiracy and, as to Hall, unlawful conversion of government funds. Hall was the former Director of Intelligence for the Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy, and Landersman was a machinist from California. The district court found that Hall facilitated the purchase of hundreds of firearm suppressors from Landersman, Hall's boss’s brother, for over $1.6 million in government funds and that the transaction was illegal. The court explained that, because some of the challenges raised on appeal relied on classified government records, the district court and this court conducted proceedings pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 18 U.S.C. app. 3, 1–16. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants and rejected defendants' numerous challenges. Accordingly, the court found no reversible error in the classified and unclassified proceedings. View "United States v. Landersman" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court applied a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) based on defendant's prior conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1959(a)(5) for conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering. The court held that conspiracy under section 1959(a)(5) did not require an overt act and was therefore broader than generic conspiracy. Therefore, defendant's section 1959(a)(5) conviction could not support his enhanced sentence because it was not categorically a crime of violence. View "United States v. McCollum" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order finding defendant to be sexually dangerous under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 18 U.S.C. 4247-4248. The court found no error in the district court's decision to credit the testimony of two experts regarding defendant's sexual dangerousness, and there was no clear error in the district court's other factual findings. The court also held that, although a mental health expert twice declined to reach the conclusion in prior evaluations that defendant was sexually dangerous, she adequately explained why defendant's conduct led her to a different conclusion and the district court did not err in relying on her opinion. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order finding defendant to be sexually dangerous under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 18 U.S.C. 4247-4248. The court found no error in the district court's decision to credit the testimony of two experts regarding defendant's sexual dangerousness, and there was no clear error in the district court's other factual findings. The court also held that, although a mental health expert twice declined to reach the conclusion in prior evaluations that defendant was sexually dangerous, she adequately explained why defendant's conduct led her to a different conclusion and the district court did not err in relying on her opinion. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of bank fraud conspiracy and two counts of aggravated identity theft. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of bank fraud conspiracy; the district court did not err in failing to conduct an in camera review to determine whether material required disclosure under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. 3500(b), or pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); the district court did not err by declining to provide defendant's requested jury instruction on accomplice testimony, and by providing the jury with a written copy of the jury instruction on aiding and abetting liability; the district court did not erroneously apply a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice, a ten-level sentencing enhancement based on the amount of loss, a two-level sentencing enhancement based on use of sophisticated means, a three-level sentencing enhancement based on his role in the offense as a manager or supervisor; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring part of defendant's sentences to run consecutively. View "United States v. Savage" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of bank fraud conspiracy and two counts of aggravated identity theft. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of bank fraud conspiracy; the district court did not err in failing to conduct an in camera review to determine whether material required disclosure under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. 3500(b), or pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); the district court did not err by declining to provide defendant's requested jury instruction on accomplice testimony, and by providing the jury with a written copy of the jury instruction on aiding and abetting liability; the district court did not erroneously apply a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice, a ten-level sentencing enhancement based on the amount of loss, a two-level sentencing enhancement based on use of sophisticated means, a three-level sentencing enhancement based on his role in the offense as a manager or supervisor; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring part of defendant's sentences to run consecutively. View "United States v. Savage" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's admittance into evidence a Facebook post where defendant quoted a rap lyric. The court held that the facts were sufficient for a jury to infer that defendant adopted the rap lyric as his own statement; the post was relevant because it indicated that defendant had carried a gun for self-protection; the risk of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the Facebook post; the government properly authenticated the post; and the post was direct evidence of the crime charged, not impermissible evidence of other acts. The court also held that even if the district court erred in admitting the post, any error was harmless. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial and instead instructing the jury to continue its deliberations. View "United States v. Recio" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and remanded for further proceedings. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence recovered from a dog sniff conducted after an already-completed traffic stop. The court held that the police officer had neither defendant's consent to extend the traffic stop nor a reasonable, articulable suspicion of ongoing criminal activity to justify doing so. Consequently, the prolonged traffic stop abridged defendant's right under the Fourth Amendment to be free of unreasonable seizures. View "United States v. Bowman" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of post-conviction relief and remanded for resentencing. The court held that defendant's prior conviction for South Carolina involuntary manslaughter did not qualify as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). In this case, South Carolina involuntary manslaughter sweeps more broadly than the physical force required under the ACCA's force clause. View "United States v. Middleton" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Government in a civil forfeiture case. The government claimed that $200,000 in cash discovered in a storage unit was subject to forfeiture because the cash was connected to the exchange of a controlled substance. The court held that, although claimants in civil forfeiture cases need only show a colorable interest in the property to have standing, the undisputed record evidence here established that claimant lacked such an interest. In this case, claimant presented no objective evidence showing that he accumulated the money found in his brother's storage unit. View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law