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

Defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. On appeal, the government challenged the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment. The district court concluded that defendant was not a prohibited person because the state statute at issue did not, as a categorical matter, qualify as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV). The court agreed with the government that the analytical approach referred to as the “modified categorical approach” applies to this case and establishes that defendant was convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. In this case, because the offense is divisible, the modified categorical approach is applicable. The relevant charging document establishes that defendant was convicted of the completed-battery form of assault under North Carolina law, and the crime of assault by completed battery categorically qualifies as an MCDV. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Vinson" on Justia Law

Defendant, who suffers from Delusional Disorder, Persecutory Type, was arrested for firing a handgun at a Coast Guard helicopter and later found incompetent to stand trial and committed to the custody of the Attorney General. After defendant refused to take antipsychotic medication in order to render himself competent, the district court granted the government’s request that he be medicated by force. The court reversed, however, concluding that the government has not met its burden of proving that involuntary medication is substantially likely to restore defendant's competency. In this case, the district court overlooked the issue lying at the heart of this case: the meagerness of the evidence that forcible treatment is substantially likely to restore defendant's competency, when his particular medical situation is taken into account - especially as evaluated under the requisite clear and convincing standard of proof. View "United States v. Watson, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of four drug-related charges, filed a pro se motion entitled “Motion for Relief from Judgment 60(b)(1)(3)(6).” The district court dismissed the motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. At issue was whether the court can review the district court’s categorization of defendant’s motion without first issuing a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B). The court held that recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has made clear that section 2253(c) does not apply in this particular situation. Because the court found that defendant’s motion constitutes a mixed Rule 60(b)/section 2255 motion, the court remanded to the district court to afford defendant the opportunity to decide whether to abandon his improper claim or to proceed with a successive habeas petition. View "United States v. McRae" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former Governor of Virginia, appealed his convictions for eleven counts of corruption. Defendant raised numerous errors on appeal. The court concluded that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for severance and his request for ex parte consideration of this motion; the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to adequately question prospective jurors on the subject of pretrial publicity; the court rejected defendant's claims of evidentiary errors; the district court's jury instructions did not misstate fundamental principles of federal bribery law; and the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions pursuant to the honest-services wire fraud statute and the Hobbs Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McDonnell" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to first-degree armed robbery and to malicious assault arising out of his shooting of a police officer who was investigating the robberies. The district court denied his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. However, the district court granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance in advising petitioner regarding the applicability of the West Virginia recidivist statute. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the West Virginia state court’s rejection of this claim resulted from an unreasonable factual or legal determination, based upon the conflicting evidence presented to it. View "Christian v. Ballard" on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Honduras, pleaded guilty to an illegal reentry offense that occurred after his removal for a felony conviction. Defendant appealed the three year term of his supervised release. The court concluded that the term of supervised release is procedurally reasonable where the district court is aware of U.S.S.C. 5D1.1(c), the district court considered defendant's specific circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, and the district court determined that additional deterrence is needed in this case. Further, the term of supervised release is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines. Finally, even if the district court inadequately advised defendant on the subject of supervised release at the plea hearing, defendant has not shown that such an error affected his substantial rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two counts of capital murder, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, contending that the Eighth Amendment prohibition on the execution of intellectually disabled persons, as set forth in Atkins v. Virginia, and Hall v. Florida, renders his two death sentences unconstitutional. The court could not conclude that after Hall, no reasonable juror would find petitioner eligible for the death penalty. Further, absent a showing that he is “actually innocent” of the death penalty, petitioner cannot overcome the procedural default that bars consideration on the merits of his Atkins claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Prieto v. Zook" on Justia Law

Defendants Parker and Taylor appealed their convictions for engaging in illegal gambling. At issue was whether the prosecutors’ failure to disclose certain impeachment evidence, despite knowing of such evidence before trial, violated Brady v. Maryland. The central contested issue during the jury trial was the sufficiency of the evidence to satisfy the statutory requirement that the gambling operation involved at least five persons. The court concluded that the government violated Brady by failing to disclose certain impeachment information regarding a government witness who testified about Parker’s daughter-in-law's involvement in the gambling operation. Accordingly, the court vacated the convictions and remanded. View "United States v. Parker" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to distribution of cocaine and aiding and abetting in its distribution, and was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment. The court concluded that the government did not breach the plea agreement where the Government is not obligated to explain its reasons for making a particular sentencing recommendation unless it agrees to do so in the plea agreement and where the prosecutor neither criticized the terms of the agreement nor expressed doubt about the legality or propriety of the recommended sentence. Further, the district court did not plainly err in ordering that defendant's sentence run consecutively to any future "State or Federal sentence." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Obey" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of multiple crimes and sentenced to death for carjacking resulting in death and for kidnapping resulting in death. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and the subsequent denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment under F.R.C.P. 59(e). Defendant raised four claims relating to an inculpatory statement he made to a law enforcement officer, two claims related to his competency to stand trial, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court rejected defendant's assignments of error and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Basham" on Justia Law