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

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, four counts of wire fraud, five counts of mail fraud, and seven counts of money-laundering. The court affirmed the convictions. However, the court concluded that the district court’s treatment of the Guidelines as mandatory is a significant procedural error. Because the error was not harmless, the court vacated the sentence as procedurally unreasonable and remanded with instructions. Further, when a district court can still conclude that the Guidelines are “no longer advisory,” in the face of such straightforward dictates and the parties’ unanimous objection to its misstatement of law, remanding the case to that court with this court's reminder of the correct law would most likely be “an exercise in futility." Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing with a different judge. View "United States v. Martinovich" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of possession of a firearm as a felon. Defendant received an enhanced 15 year sentence as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(e). After defendant's sentencing, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Johnson v. United States. In light of Johnson, defendant's two North Carolina state convictions for Felony Speeding to elude Arrest no longer constitute valid Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), predicates. Each of defendant's convictions, for which he faced a 19 month term of imprisonment, qualifies as a prior felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Barlow" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to one count of possessing with intent to distribute an unspecified quantity of crack cocaine. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that the search was unconstitutional due to the intentional decision of the officer to tell defendant that there was a search warrant, even though he knew that his statement was untrue. The good faith exception to the exclusionary ruled does not apply in this case where there can be no doubt that a reasonable officer would know that deliberately lying about the existence of a warrant would violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and remanded. View "United States v. Rush" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm as a felon and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the firearm. In this case, the officers activated their vehicle’s emergency lights, trained a spotlight on defendant, and drew their weapons. Considering the totality of the circumstances, no reasonable person in defendant's position would have felt free to terminate the encounter. Thus, the district court committed no error in finding that the officers demonstrated a show of authority sufficient to implicate the Fourth Amendment. The court held that, under controlling Supreme Court precedent, when an individual attempts to evade a seizure and reveals evidence or contraband prior to submission to police authority, the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not apply. The court concluded that, under the totality of the facts as found by the district court in this case, walking away from police with a loaded gun in hand, in contravention of police orders, constitutes submission to police authority. Since defendant did not accede to police authority until confronted by an armed officer in front of the vehicle, the gun he discarded prior to that time was not the fruit of the seizure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stover" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), contending that Guidelines Amendment 780, which revised the policy statement governing section 3582(c)(2) sentence reductions, renders him eligible for relief. The court agreed with the United States Attorney and defendant that the district court erred by failing to recognize that Amendment 780 altered the course the court followed in United States v. Hood. The district court failed to recognized that Amendment 780’s revision to Guidelines section 1B1.10 has modified the process for determining section 3582(c)(2) eligibility. Consequently, the court adhered to its pre-Hood decisions and recognized the Commission's authority to dictate the proper application of the Guidelines. The court's conclusion is consistent with the Sentencing Reform Act's focus on the elimination of unwarranted sentencing disparity and furthers the express Congressional policy of rewarding cooperation. In this case, defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2) because his revised Guidelines range is lower than his original range. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, contending that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop. During the traffic stop, a deputy sheriff issued defendant a written warning and defendant subsequently refused to consent to a vehicle search. A dog sniff was conducted and crack cocaine seized from the vehicle. The court concluded that the officers did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity during the traffic stop. Therefore, extending the otherwise-completed stop of the vehicle to conduct a dog sniff violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Williams, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, aiding and abetting the same, and conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. The court concluded that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin on July 13, 2011. In this case, the fact that defendant possessed a key to the Apartment, entered the apartment building containing the Apartment on July 13, 2011, stayed five minutes, and exited with a sandwich-sized plastic container in his hand, standing alone, is insufficient evidence to establish his constructive possession of the heroin found in the footstool in the front bedroom of the Apartment. Further, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict defendant of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin where the court does not know and cannot know whether the jury found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the lesser included offense. Accordingly, the court reversed both convictions. View "United States v. Blue" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas corpus petition, seeking release from the obligation to make restitution payments through the BOP's Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). The district court found that petitioner's claim was not cognizable under section 2241. The court held, however, that an inmate’s challenge to the BOP’s administration of the IFRP is a challenge to the “execution” of a sentence that is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fontanez v. O'Brien" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for receipt of child pornography, arguing that his prosecution and conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2) should have been barred by the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause because of his earlier plea to possession of child pornography in violation of section 2252(a)(4). The court concluded that the prosecution and conviction of defendant for receipt of child pornography in violation of section 2252(a)(2) was premised on facts distinct from those covered by defendant’s guilty plea to possession of child pornography in violation of section 2252(a)(4). Therefore, defendant was subject to multiple punishments for multiple offenses, not multiple punishments for the same offense. Because there is no double jeopardy violation, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Schnittker" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm and was sentenced as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on his prior South Carolina drug convictions. The court affirmed its holding in United States v. Williams, directing that courts evaluating whether a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate for a federal sentence enhancement look to the statutory penalty for the prior conviction. In Williams, Youthful Offender Act (YOA), S.C. Code Ann. 24-19-50, offenses can qualify as ACCA predicates because the maximum statutory penalty for the prior conviction is unaffected by the state court’s exercise of its discretion to impose a sentence of six years or less in custody. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sellers" on Justia Law