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

Defendant-Appellant Mirna Del Carmen Gomez, a citizen of El Salvador, pled guilty to unlawful reentry of a deported alien after an aggravated felony conviction. Although she agreed with the statement of facts submitted by the government in support of her guilty plea, Defendant objected to the government's assertion that her prior conviction for child abuse under Maryland law amounted to a crime of violence for purposes of the U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) sentencing enhancement. According to Defendant, because the relevant portion of the statute did not contain a division between forceful and nonforceful conduct, the district court could not use the modified categorical approach to determine that her prior child abuse conviction was a crime of violence. The district court employed the modified categorical approach to determine that Defendant's child abuse conviction constituted a crime of violence and added sixteen levels to her base offense level. Thereafter, the district court calculated her Guidelines range to be forty-one to fifty-one months, but made a downward variance and sentenced her to twenty-four months' imprisonment. Because the Fourth Circuit found that the district court's application of the modified categorical approach to the indivisible provision at issue was in error, it vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Sean Theodore Brehm, a citizen of South Africa, pled guilty to a federal charge of assault resulting in serious bodily injury, on condition that he be allowed to challenge through appeal the jurisdictional basis of the indictment underlying his conviction. The grand jury accused Defendant of stabbing a British subject, "J.O.," during an altercation at Kandahar Airfield, while both men were employed with private contractors supporting the NATO war effort in Afghanistan. On appeal, Defendant argued that the indictment's reliance on the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act was misplaced, in that the statute (which Defendant admitted was valid on its face) could not be applied to him in a manner consistent with the Constitution. Defendant also asserted that the government failed to establish a sufficient nexus between him and the United States to support the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, pointing out that, prior to his arrival in Virginia as an accused, neither he nor his victim had ever set foot in this country. Upon review, the Fourth Circuit rejected Defendant's challenges to his conviction and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Brehm" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Mantel Mubdi entered a conditional guilty plea to drug and firearm charges, reserving the right to challenge the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop. The district court sentenced him to 300 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officers who stopped his car lacked probable cause to execute the stop. Alternatively, Defendant argued that the officers unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop to conduct an open-air canine sniff of his car. Finding no error, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "US v. Mubdi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Dwayne Durham was charged and jailed in southwest Virginia for more than three months before the prosecutor realized that this was a case of mistaken identity and rectified the error. As a result, Plaintiff filed suit against, inter alia, Officer David L. Horner, alleging a Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, plus a state law claim for malicious prosecution. The district court awarded summary judgment to Horner on the basis of qualified immunity, and Plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff contended that Horner was not entitled to qualified immunity because he relied on and utilized unverified information to set "forth a chain of events that would lead to the indictment and arrest of the wrong individual." Upon review, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding Plaintiff was unable to establish that his seizure was "pursuant to legal process that was not supported by probable cause," and he could not show the essential constitutional violation underlying a 1983 claim. Because there was, as a matter of law, probable cause for Plaintiff's arrest and detention, his state law malicious prosecution claim failed too. View "Durham v. Horner" on Justia Law

Defendant Ivan Teleguz was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Virginia. He appealed the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing to develop his claim of actual innocence, which, under "Schlup v. Delo," (513 U.S. 298 (1995)), would allow the district court to address Defendant's procedurally defaulted constitutional claims. Upon review, the Fourth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a sound and thorough analysis of Defendant's "Schlup" gateway innocence claim as required by the Court's decision in "Wolfe v. Johnson," (565 F.3d 140, 163 (4th Cir. 2009)), and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Teleguz v. Kelly" on Justia Law

In April 2010, the government jointly tried Anthony Fleming and Tavon Mouzone, members of the gang "Tree Top Piru" (TTP), in an eight-day jury trial. The grand jury charged both Fleming and Mouzone with conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise (RICO conspiracy), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d). It additionally charged Fleming with committing two drug offenses: (1) conspiracy to distribute and possession with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base; and (2) distribution of and possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base. The jury convicted both Fleming and Mouzone of the RICO conspiracy charge, finding that distribution of crack cocaine, distribution of cocaine, and robbery were conspiracy objectives. It declined to find that murder or conspiracy to commit murder was a conspiracy objective. The jury also convicted Fleming on both drug charges. The district court sentenced Mouzone to 240 months' imprisonment, running concurrent with a previous Maryland state court sentence, and it sentenced Fleming to three concurrent sentences: 240 months' imprisonment on the RICO conspiracy charge and life imprisonment on each drug-related charge. Mouzone and Fleming alleged several district court errors on appeal. Upon review, the Fourth Circuit found no reversible error and therefore affirmed. View "United States v. Mouzone" on Justia Law

In April 2010, Mike Miller resigned from his position as Project Director for WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, Inc. (WEC). Twenty days later, he made a presentation to a potential WEC customer on behalf of WEC's competitor, Arc Energy Services, Inc. (Arc). The customer ultimately chose to do business with Arc. WEC contended that before resigning, Miller, acting at Arc's direction, downloaded WEC's proprietary information and used it in making the presentation. Thus, it sued Miller, his assistant Emily Kelley, and Arc for, among other things, violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (18 U.S.C. 1030). The district court dismissed WEC's CFAA claim, holding that the CFAA provided no relief for Appellees' alleged conduct. Upon review of the trial court record, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the court's opinion and therefore affirmed. View "WEC Carolina Energy Solutions v. Miller" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs David McCorkle and William Pender appealed a district court order dismissing two of their class action claims against Bank of America Corporation for alleged violations of certain provisions of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Their claims centered on the Bank's use of a normal retirement age (NRA) that allegedly violated ERISA in calculating lump sum distributions and further ran afoul of ERISA's prohibition of "backloading" the calculation of benefit accrual. Upon review, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and it affirmed the district court's judgment to dismiss those claims. View "Pender v. Bank of America Corp." on Justia Law

Appellant Temitope Akinsade appealed a district court's denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, claiming that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when he plead guilty to embezzlement by a bank employee. Appellant is a Nigerian citizen who legally came to America in July 1988 at the age of seven and became a lawful permanent resident in May 2000. During his employment, Appellant cashed checks for several neighborhood acquaintances, who were not listed as payees on the checks, and deposited a portion of the proceeds from those checks into his own account. When interviewed by the FBI several months later, Appellant agreed to cooperate against the individuals for whom he cashed the checks. In early 2000, Appellant was charged with embezzlement by a bank employee. Relying on his attorney's advice that one count of embezzlement was not a deportable offense, Appellant pled guilty. The plea agreement made no mention that deportation was mandatory or even possible due to the offense. The district court sentenced Appellant to one month of imprisonment to be served in community confinement, a three-year term of supervised release, and a special assessment of $100. At sentencing, the district court recognized that Appellant's conduct was "out of character" based on his family background. The court thus gave Appellant the minimum sentence under the sentencing guidelines. Almost nine years after Appellant's conviction, immigration authorities arrested him at home and placed him in detention in Batavia, New York. After seventeen months in detention, the immigration authorities released Appellant and charged him with removability as an aggravated felon. The court held that while counsel's affirmative misrepresentations rendered his assistance constitutionally deficient under the first prong of "Strickland v. Washington," (466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)), Appellant was not prejudiced as required under Strickland's second prong. It reasoned that its admonishment of the potential for deportation during the plea colloquy cured counsel's affirmative misrepresentations. The issue before the Fourth Circuit was whether counsel's misadvice was an error of the "most fundamental character" such that coram nobis relief is required to "achieve justice." Upon review, the Court found that counsel's affirmative misrepresentations that the crime at issue was non-deportable prejudiced Akinsade. Accordingly, the Court granted the petition for writ of error coram nobis and vacated Appellant's conviction. View "United States v. Akinsade" on Justia Law

Defendant William Davis pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon for which he received a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"). Both in his plea agreement and at his plea hearing, Defendant was advised incorrectly that he faced a maximum sentence of only ten years. Defendant contended on appeal that this error constituted a breach of his plea agreement and asked the Fourth Circuit to order that he receive the ten-year sentence described incorrectly as his statutory maximum. Defendant also challenged the district court’s conclusion that he qualified for the ACCA sentence enhancement. Upon review, the Fourth Circuit held that the failure to properly advise Defendant of his statutory maximum sentence was not a breach by the government. Under these circumstances, however, the Court was unable to conclude that Defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the right to appeal his fifteen-year sentence. The Court therefore declined to enforce Defendant's appeal waiver and considered his alleged sentencing errors. Finding no merit in those claims, the Court affirmed. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law