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

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. On appeal, he challenged his 188-month sentence as substantively unreasonable. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering defendant's violent juvenile crimes; the increase in the criminal history category does not raise the issue of “unwarranted sentencing disparities” identified in United States v. Howard; the record does not support defendant's argument that the third sale was a replacement, nor would the district court have abused its discretion by basing the base offense level calculation on seven kilograms even if it did constitute a replacement; and the proper avenue for a request for application of Amendment 782 is a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), which would allow the district court to assess in the first instance whether and to what extent the amendment may affect defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, the court concluded that the sentence was substantively reasonable and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McCoy" on Justia Law

The district court concluded that the state habeas court had unreasonably applied the principles of Brady v. Maryland. The district court granted petitioner's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, finding that the prosecuting attorney had admitted to petitioner's defense counsel that the victim of petitioner's attempted robbery crime told the prosecuting attorney before trial that he, the victim, had not been put in fear by petitioner on the date of the crime, an element essential to conviction under West Virginia law, and that the prosecuting attorney had failed to so inform petitioner. The court agreed with the State's appeal, contending that the district court impermissibly found new facts and erred in failing to give the appropriate deference to the state habeas court’s factual findings and conclusions of law made with respect to its adjudication of petitioners’ Brady claim. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "Watkins v. Rubenstein" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana (and aiding and abetting the same), and carrying a firearm during and in relation to those drug trafficking crimes. The court held that the magistrate judge erred in concluding that defendant forfeited his right to counsel. Further, nothing in the record supports the government’s alternate contention that defendant either expressly or impliedly waived that right. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial because the error is not harmless. View "United States v. Ductan" on Justia Law

Defendant, an ordained Lutheran minister, moved to Haiti in 2004 to oversee a large ministry outside of Port Au Prince with his wife. Defendant conditionally plead guilty to two counts of engaging in an illicit sexual act with a minor after traveling in foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(c) and (e), and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. At issue was whether Congress may prohibit individuals from engaging in non-commercial “illicit sexual conduct” after they “travel in foreign commerce.” The court held that the Foreign Commerce Clause provides constitutional sanction. The court also concluded that the sentenced imposed by the district court was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bollinger" on Justia Law

Defendants Fuertes and Ventura appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit, and commission of, a number of sex trafficking and related offenses. The court concluded that Ventura's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) for possession and use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence was erroneous because, the court held, sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a), is not categorically a crime of violence. Therefore, the court vacated the conviction on Count Seven and remanded for entry of judgment of acquittal on that count. Otherwise, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Fuertes" on Justia Law

Defendants, Somali pirates, were convicted of multiple offenses, including piracy as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 1651. The district court declined to impose statutorily mandated life sentences on defendants, reasoning that such sentences would contravene the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The government appealed the district court's decision not to impose life sentences and defendants cross-appealed, challenging the district court's failure to dismiss the section 1651 charge, the jury instructions with respect to the piracy offense, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting certain of their convictions. The court concluded that it was satisfied that “the relationship between the gravity of [the defendants’] offenses and the severity of [their proposed] punishment fails to create the threshold inference of gross disproportionality that is required” to satisfy prong one of the Eighth Amendment analysis. Therefore, without analyzing prong two, the court concluded that the district court erred in invalidating section 1651's mandatory life sentence to defendants. The court rejected all of defendants' claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and reversed the sentences, remanding for resentencing. View "United States v. Said" on Justia Law

Defendants Graham and Jordan appealed their convictions for several offenses arising from a series of armed robberies. Jordan separately challenged restrictions on his own testimony imposed by the district court, the denial of his motion for severance, the exclusion of certain out-of-court statements attributed to Graham, the admission of evidence seized during a search of his residence, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting several of his convictions.The court concluded that the government’s warrantless procurement of the cell site location information (CSLI) was an unreasonable search in violation of defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights. The court held, nonetheless, that the district court's admission of the challenged evidence must be sustained because the government relied in good faith on court orders issued in accordance with Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848, or the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. 2703(a), (c). The court rejected Jordan's separate challenges, finding no reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Graham" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and sentenced to life imprisonment, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241, seeking relief pursuant to United States v. Simmons. Had defendant been sentenced after Simmons, defendant would have faced a lower mandatory minimum sentence than the mandatory life term that he actually received. The court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction under section 2255(e) to consider defendant’s section 2241 petition. The court noted that it was not unsympathetic to defendant's claim due to the gravity of the life sentence. However, Congress has the power to define the scope of the writ of habeas corpus, and Congress has exercised that power here to narrowly limit the circumstances in which a section 2241 petition may be brought. The petition, in this case, does not present one of the permitted circumstances. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Surratt, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the country and the district court applied a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement based on defendants previous conviction in North Carolina for discharging a firearm into an occupied building, which the district court concluded is a requisite “crime of violence.” The court concluded that the district court erred in ruling that defendant's offense necessarily involved the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against a person when, in fact, under North Carolina law, there need be only the use of force against property to sustain a conviction. The court further concluded that this error was not harmless and therefore, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Parral-Dominguez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the country and the district court applied a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement based on defendants previous conviction in North Carolina for discharging a firearm into an occupied building, which the district court concluded is a requisite “crime of violence.” The court concluded that the district court erred in ruling that defendant's offense necessarily involved the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against a person when, in fact, under North Carolina law, there need be only the use of force against property to sustain a conviction. The court further concluded that this error was not harmless and therefore, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Parral-Dominguez" on Justia Law