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

Pinnacle claimed that the Army unlawfully withheld many communications between Clark and the Army, in violation of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. The district court granted summary judgment to the Army and Pinnacle appealed. The court concluded that public disclosure of the Category C documents would impair the government's ability to get this necessary information in the future and that the documents were, therefore, confidential and fell within Exemption 4 of the Act. The court found that Category B documents were protected by the common interest doctrine and qualified as intra-agency communications pursuant to Exemption 5 of the Act. The court disposed of Pinnacle's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "American Mgmt. Svcs. v. Dept. of the Army" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court reversed his conviction because of a post-trial change in law effected by United States v. Simmons and remanded the case for further proceedings. Defendant was again convicted and appealed on double jeopardy grounds. The court held that defendant's argument failed in light of United States v. Ellyson, where the court had concluded that where a reviewing court determined that the evidence presented at trial had been rendered insufficient only by a post-trial change in law, double jeopardy concerns did not preclude the government from retrying the defendant. Accordingly, the court found no error and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ford" on Justia Law

Defendants conspired to steal cocaine from a stash house of a drug cartel but were arrested just before they could attempt to complete the object of their conspiracy. The stash house and the cocaine never existed, but were rather a fiction created by undercover law enforcement officers. Each defendant was convicted on several counts related to his participation in the conspiracy and defendants raised several challenges on appeal. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' motions to sever, and that Defendant Min's redacted confession was properly admitted against him with a limiting instruction. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that factual impossibility was not a defense to conspiracy and therefore rejected defendants' arguments that the factual impossibility of the robbery they conspired to commit rendered their convictions legally insupportable. The court also found that the evidence was more than sufficient to establish the amount of cocaine defendants conspired to possess, as well as their possession of firearms in furtherance of the conspiracy. The court further held that the detective's testimony, which was rationally based on his own personal perception, was properly admitted. The court could find no reason to overturn any of defendants' convictions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Min" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions of armed robbery and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. The court held that the government's effort to craft a freestanding "resemblance testimony" carve-out from settled eyewitness evidence jurisprudence was unavailing, and that the government's examination of the bank teller witness under the circumstances here resulted in the elicitation of unnecessarily suggestive evidence of identification wholly lacking reliability. Nevertheless, the court declined to find reversible error where the error in admitting the testimony did not affect defendant's substantial right to a fair trial. The court also held that the district court did not err in failing to give a Holley-Telfaire instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Greene" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of ammunition by a felon. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress because his incriminating statement was the product of an illegal detention. The court held that defendant's three-hour detention constituted an unlawful custodial arrest in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights; the taint of the unlawful custodial arrest was not purged by the two Miranda warnings provided during his detention or by any intervening circumstance; and the erroneous admission of defendant's statement was not harmless error. Accordingly, the court vacated the convictions and remanded to the district court. View "United States v. Watson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of crimes related to his involvement in an elaborate fraudulent sweepstakes scheme out of Costa Rica that primarily targeted elderly United States citizens. On appeal, defendant challenged the restitution order that the district court entered after the court remanded his case for resentencing. The court held that the district court lacked the authority to reconsider the restitution on remand and vacated the order, remanding with instructions to the district court to reinstate the previous restitution order. View "United States v. Pileggi" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to enticing or attempting to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court held that defendant's primary contention that the district court erred in interpreting 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), was procedurally defaulted because he failed to raise it during his initial plea proceeding. Moreover, defendant's statutory claim failed on the merits. The court also held that defendant's ineffective assistance arguments provided no substantive grounds for relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Fugit" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon. Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. The court held that, because the stop and search of defendant's car and seizure of his cell phone did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights, the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's Rule 29 motions to dismiss where there were sufficient facts from which a jury could conclude that defendant possessed the ammunition. The court further held that defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable and the district court did not err in determining a base offense level of 26. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment View "United States v. Lawing" on Justia Law

Defendant, a convicted felon, pled guilty to possession of ammunition. On appeal, he contended that application of the felon-in-possession prohibition to him violated the Constitution. The court held that the application of the felon-in-possession prohibition to allegedly non-violent felons like defendant did not violate the Second Amendment. The court also held that defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated where there was a rational relation between the felon-in-possession prohibition as applied to a collector of dangerous, often stolen weapons and explosives who had repeatedly and flagrantly ignored the law. Accordingly, the court found defendant's claims on appeal to be without merit and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pruess" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a pre-enforcement challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute restricting interstate transfers of handguns, 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3); a federal regulation implementing that statute, 27 C.F.R. 478.99; and a Virginia law prohibiting Virginia firearms dealers from selling handguns to non-residents of Virginia, Va. Code section 18.2-308.2:2. Because the challenged laws did not burden plaintiffs directly, and because plaintiffs were not prevented from acquiring the handguns they desired, they did not allege an injury in fact. Even if plaintiffs established an injury in fact, they were unable to demonstrate traceability. The court also held that there was no organizational standing. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint on standing grounds. View "Lane v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law