Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was convicted of a single count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Petitioner filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 four years later, in light of the court's decision in United States v. Simmons. In Simmons, the court held that a defendant's prior conviction for which he could not have received more than a year in prison under North Carolina's mandatory Structured Sentencing Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1340.17, was not "punishable" by more than one year in prison and was not a felony offense for purposes of federal law. The court vacated petitioner's conviction and remanded with instructions to the district court to grant his petition because Simmons announced a new substantive rule that was retroactive on collateral review. View "Miller v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a correctional officer alleging that he used excessive force against plaintiff. Without provocation, the officer assaulted plaintiff for about two minutes before the officer moved plaintiff to a holding cell, knocking his head against a gate on the way out. The prison staff then kept plaintiff in ambulatory restraints for seventeen hours following the assault. On appeal, the officer appealed the district court's denial of his Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law. Because no extraordinary circumstances were applicable to plaintiff's injuries and he suffered no more than de minimis injury, he could not, at the time the assault took place, state a claim upon which relief could be granted under the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the right he sought to avail himself of was not clearly established in the Fourth Circuit at the time of the alleged suit and the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Hill v. Crum" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of the career offender enhancement, holding that his prior Virginia conviction categorically qualified as a crime of violence and constituted a predicate offense for the enhancement. The court held that a conviction under Virginia Code 18.2-57(C) for assault and battery of a police officer was not categorically a crime of violence because the offense of assault and battery referenced in that statute was defined by the common law, the elements of which did not substantiate a serious potential risk of injury in the usual case. However, the district court did not commit plain error in reaching a contrary conclusion, given the absence of controlling authority and the divergence of opinion among other circuits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Carthorne, Sr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction stemming from the killing of his ex-girlfriend on the reservation of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Defendant argued that the district court erred in declining the prosecutors' multiple requests for an instruction on the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. The court concluded, however, that defendant invited such error by opposing the instruction as a matter of trial strategy and, therefore, the error was not reversible. Further, the exception to the invited error doctrine did not apply in this instance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lespier" on Justia Law

Defendant filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion challenging the jury instruction given in his underlying trial for witness tampering. Defendant argued that the instruction misstated the federal nexus required for the offense in light of Fowler v. United States. The court affirmed the district court's order denying defendant's section 2255 motion, concluding that the instructional error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of first-degree burglary and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. On appeal, the state challenged the district court's grant of petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner cross-appealed. The court reversed the district court's judgment, concluding that counsel's failure to call an expert in eyewitness identification did not constitute ineffective assistance where there was at least reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland v. Washington's deferential standard. The court, however, affirmed the district court's rejection of petitioner's other claims for ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Moore, Jr. v. Hardee" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former CIA agent, was indicted for illegally disclosing classified information about a covert CIA operation regarding an Iranian nuclear weapons operation to the intervenor for publication in a book written by the intervenor. In the majority opinion written by Chief Judge Traxler, the court reversed the district court's order holding that the intervenor had a reporter's privilege that entitled him to refuse to testify at trial concerning the source and scope of the classified national defense information illegally disclosed to him. In a separate majority opinion written by Judge Gregory, the court reversed the district court's order suppressing the testimony of the two government witnesses, and affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 18 U.S.C. app. 3, ruling. View "United States v. Sterling" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct under 36 C.F.R. 2.34, which prohibits conduct that is "obscene," "physically threatening or menacing," or "likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace." Defendant very briefly touched an undercover ranger's fully-clothed crotch area after the ranger approached defendant, as a part of a sting operation specifically targeted at gay men, and initiated a sexually suggestive conversation with defendant, expressly agreeing to have sex with defendant. The court held that the term "obscene" was unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant; no rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's brief touch of the ranger's crotch, in this instance, was "physically threatening or menacing" or "likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace;" and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded for a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Lanning" on Justia Law

The district court resentenced defendant, who pleaded guilty to possession of five grams or more of crack cocaine and to maintaining a dwelling for the use of cocaine, to an above-Guidelines sentence of 120 months' imprisonment and defendant appealed. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that the mandate rule did not preclude it from considering the government's renewed U.S.S.G. 4A1.3 upward departure motion; while the district court erred in concluding that the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), 21 U.S.C. 841, did not apply retroactively, that error was harmless as demonstrated by the district court's statements at sentencing; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not base the length of his sentence on his rehabilitative needs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Alston" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his plea of guilty to five counts of tax evasion. The court concluded that the district court did not err in holding that defendant was bound by the tax revenue loss figure he stipulated to in the plea agreement. Therefore, the district court did not commit procedural error in its sentencing determination. Further, defendant's below-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Weon" on Justia Law