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

Defendants, husband and wife, were convicted in a jury trial of two offenses related to their conduct of growing marijuana at their home in a rural area of West Virginia. Defendants raised three issues on appeal. The court concluded that the affidavit provided a sufficient basis to establish probable cause for issuance of the thermal-imaging search warrant. Therefore, the court held that the district court did not err in denying defendants' motion to suppress. The court could not say that the district court acted on an erroneous legal principle in determining that defendants' reason for personally using marijuana should be excluded from evidence. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting the government's motion in limine. Finally, the court held that the district court did not clearly err in determining that defendants failed to carry their burden of proving that they satisfied the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(5). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's decision denying application of the safety-valve provision. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted after pleading guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court committed three errors in sentencing. Because the court concluded that pointing and presenting a firearm in violation of South Carolina Code 16-23-410 qualified as a crime of violence under the first clause of the Guidelines definition of that term, the court need not address defendant's argument that this offense did not qualify as a crime of violence under the second clause of the Guidelines definition. The court agreed with the Third Circuit that a sentence imposing an Alford plea qualified as a "prior sentence" within the meaning of U.S.S.G. 4A1.2. Because the court already concluded that the reasons given at the hearing adequately explained defendant's sentence, the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court's issuance of a written sentencing order failed to afford defendant an opportunity to respond to the basis for the variance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). At issue was whether defendant's sentence was properly enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), on the basis of three previous felony convictions when two of the convictions were for violation of Florida's "fleeing-or-eluding" statute, Fla. Stat. 3106.1935(2). Applying Sykes v. United States, the court held that the two convictions at issue qualified as predicate offenses under the residual clause in the ACCA and affirmed the judgment. The court also rejected defendant's contention that the ACCA's "residual clause" was unconstitutionally vague. View "United States v. Hudson" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy trustee in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy estate of the debtor appealed a district court order affirming a bankruptcy court ruling that in calculating projected disposable income, the debtor could deduct the monthly payments that she would not in fact be required to make. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court erred in ruling that the determination of the debtor's projected disposable income could not take into account the debtor's intention to surrender her ATV vehicles. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and remanded. View "Morris v. Quigley" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought an action under 18 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants after defendants asked plaintiffs to remove large, graphic signs depicting aborted fetuses that plaintiffs were using as part of a roadside demonstration. Plaintiffs and defendants subsequently cross-appealed different portions of the district court's opinion and order. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity to defendants in their individual capacities where, at the time of the anti-abortion demonstration at issue, it was not clearly established that law enforcement officers could not proscribe the display of large, graphic photographs in a traditional public forum. The court held that plaintiff was indeed awarded summary judgment on its request for a declaratory judgment that defendants' actions were an unconstitutional infringement on its First Amendment rights. There was no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of attorney's fees to plaintiffs. Finally, the court held that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to order defendants to safeguard plaintiff's First Amendment rights and refrain from impermissible content-based restrictions in the future. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on grounds of qualified immunity, the denial of an award of attorney's fees to plaintiff, and the grant of injunctive relief to plaintiff against defendants. View "Lefemine v. Wideman" on Justia Law

Ocean Pines Association, a non-stock corporation, oversees a subdivision of more than thirty-five hundred acres in Berlin, Maryland. The Association was exempt from federal income taxation as an organization "not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare" pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4)(A). The Tax Court subsequently determined that the net income from two parking lots and a beach club owned by a tax-exempt association constituted "unrelated business taxable income." The association appealed. Because the income derived from the parking lots and beach club was not "substantially related" to the association's tax-exempt purpose, the court affirmed. View "Ocean Pines Assoc. v. Commissioner of IRS" on Justia Law

In July 1994, defendant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to 210 months of incarceration, followed by a three year term of supervised release. In August 2010, defendant's probation officer filed a Notice of Violation, alleging six violations of the conditions of defendant's supervised release. Defendant subsequently appealed the judgment of the district court revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months of incarceration. Because the court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C) when it admitted and relied on hearsay evidence at defendant's revocation hearing, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Doswell" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. As part of a plea agreement, defendant waived his right to appeal "any sentence." During defendant's subsequent incarceration, the government filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), seeking to reduce his sentence in light of his assistance to the government in prosecuting an unrelated case. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed. Because the court concluded that it was within the scope of defendant's appellate waiver, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Thornsbury" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant, the "Commander" of the American National Socialist Workers' Party, on four counts (Counts 1, 3, 5, and 6). Counts 1, 5, and 6 were for transmitting interstate commerce - by email, U.S. Mail, and telephone - threats to injure or intimidate individuals in violation of 18 U.S.C. 875(c). Count 3 was for violating 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(1) for intimidation of individuals to "influence, delay, or prevent the[ir] testimony." The government subsequently appealed the district court's judgment of acquittal on Count 6 and its refusal to apply the sentencing enhancement for vulnerable victims on Count 3, and defendant appealed the district court's refusal to grant his Rule 29 motion as to Counts 1, 3, and 5 and to sustain his objection to Count 3 based on constructive amendment of the indictment. The court affirmed the district court's rulings on the Rule 29 motions as well as to all four counts, and affirmed defendant's convictions on Counts 1, 3, and 5, but vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court applied an incorrect standard in deciding whether to consider an enhancement for victims' vulnerability. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

T-Mobile filed a complaint in the district court against the Board, asserting that the Board's denials of T-Mobile's applications to construct a wireless service facility on an existing transmission pole violated certain provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B), which placed limitations on a local governing body's decisional authority regarding the placement and modification of personal wireless service facilities. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board and T-Mobile appealed. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that T-Mobile failed to establish that the Board effectively prohibited personal wireless services, as proscribed by subsection (B)(i)(II), or unreasonably discriminated against T-Mobile, as proscribed by subsection (B)(i)(I). Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of the Board. View "T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Fairfax County Board" on Justia Law