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

Defendant appealed the district court's dismissal of his claim under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(a) and 2255(h), holding that defendant did not meet the requirements of a permissible second or successive motion to vacate. The court held that a numerically second section 2255 motion should not be considered second or successive under section 2255(h) where, as here, the facts relied on by the movant seeking resentencing did not exist when the numerically first motion was filed and adjudicated. Here, defendant's claim was unripe at the time his numerically first motion was adjudicated. Thus, in light of the subsequent vacatur of his state No Operator's License conviction, which contributed to the original guidelines calculation of his federal sentence, his motion was not successive. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Hairston" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the law enforcement officer's search of defendant's car was unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because the probable cause on which the search was based was tainted. Defendant's discriminatory statements that gave rise to probable cause to search the car were elicited in response to the officer's manifestly false assertion that he had probable cause to search the car and his suggestion that, with our without defendant's consent, he would proceed with the search. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order denying the suppression motion, vacated defendant's conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Saafir" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court concluded that defendant was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), due to his three prior state convictions for "breaking and entering" in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-54(a). The court concluded that N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-54(a), as interpreted by the North Carolina Supreme Court, sweeps no more broadly than the generic elements of burglary. The state court's clarification that the offense requires either breaking or entering without a building owner's consent brings it within Taylor v. United States's requirement of an "unlawful or unprivileged entry." This clarification also "excludes any case in which a person enters premises open to the public, no matter his intent" as required by Descamps v. United States. Accordingly, N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-54(a) qualifies as an ACCA predicate offense under section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Mungro, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's denial of his motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(A). The court affirmed the district court's determination that, although plaintiff prevailed in his lawsuit against the Commissioner, attorney's fees were unwarranted because the Commissioner had pursued a substantially justified position. Despite the oddity of the Commissioner's original position, his misstep did not merit a fee award.View "Meyer, III v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence stemming from several instances of criminal conduct that defendant was accused of undertaking between October 2001 and June 2002. The Superseding indictment charged defendant in Count One with conspiracy to receive, possess, conceal, store, barter, sell, and dispose of stolen firearms; in Count Two with the substantive 18 U.S.C. 922(j) offense; in Count Three with solicitation of another to assist in damaging and destroying by explosive the Johnston County Courthouse and Sheriff's office; in Count Four with receiving an explosive with the intent that it be used to kill, injure, or intimidate other persons and to damage and destroy buildings; in Count Five with a misdemeanor charge of improperly storing explosive materials; and in Count Six with distributing explosive materials to an individual under twenty-one years of age. The court affirmed defendant's convictions on Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment, but reversed his convictions on Counts Five and Six. Because the latter two convictions did not materially affect his sentence, the court did not remand for resentencing.View "United States v. Barefoot, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for two counts of Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) and one count of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for two independent reasons. Whether viewed through the lens of the effect of defendant's crimes (depletion of assets) or his intent (targeting), the government adduced sufficient evidence in this case to meet the jurisdictional element of the Hobbs Act. Therefore, the court upheld defendant's Hobbs Act convictions. Because defendant challenged his firearm conviction solely on the ground that the Hobbs Act predicate was infirm, that conviction too must be upheld.View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to wire fraud; money laundering; making a false statement on a loan application to a financial institution, the accounts of which are insured by the FDIC; and corrupt interference with the internal revenue laws of the United States. The court concluded that the district court did not err by increasing defendant's offense level under the Guidelines by 2 levels under U.S.S.G. 3B1.3 for abuse of a position of trust; by increasing his offense level under the Guidelines by 20 levels under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1)(K); and by failing sua sponte to appoint various experts to assist in his defense at sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's sentence.View "United States v. Weiss" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal with prejudice of their Maryland quiet title claim. Where, as here, a property is encumbered by a deed of trust and its release is conditioned on a party's performance under a note, determining who holds title to the property necessarily involves determining whether the party has performed under the note. Therefore, the court could not decouple the questions of plaintiffs' personal liability and the security interest in the property. In this case, plaintiffs are not entitled to the benefits of a quiet title action because they are not authorized by statute to resolve clouds on a legal title which they do not own. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. The court also held that the district court acted within its discretion in denying plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Anand v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC" on Justia Law

GEICO appealed the district court's order granting partial summary judgment against them on the issue of liability in an action asserting denial of overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. Plaintiffs cross-appealed an order granting partial summary judgment against them on several issues relating to the remedy to be awarded. With no final decision to review, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeals before it. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeals.View "Calderon v. GEICO General Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court concluded that the district court erred by increasing defendant's sentence after determining that his prior conviction for fourth-degree burglary constituted a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(2). Therefore, the court vacated defendant's 77-month sentence and remanded for resentencing.View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law