Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of four charges which were based on intentional misrepresentations he made concerning his service in the United States Marine Corps. After reviewing the parties' arguments on appeal, the court held that there was substantial evidence to support both defendant's false statement conviction and theft conviction. The court further held that the statutes underlying defendant's insignia convictions were constitutional, both on their face and as applied to defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions on all counts. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Claimant filed a motion in the district court under Rule 60(b)(4) to set aside a forfeiture judgment as void because the government had filed its civil forfeiture complaint beyond the 90-day time limit imposed on it by 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(3). The court held that, while the time limit imposed on the government was mandatory, it was not jurisdictional, and because claimant did not raise this defense during the course of the forfeiture action, he forfeited it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order denying claimant's motion to vacate the forfeiture judgment. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. At issue on appeal was whether Tapia v. United States applied in the context of resentencing on the revocation of supervised release. The court held that it did. Here, however, the transcript of the revocation hearing made plain that the "egregious breach of trust" committed by defendant in repeatedly violating the conditions of supervised release drove the sentencing decision. Therefore, the court saw no reason to direct a remand that would serve no purpose and accordingly affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Bennett, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged two convictions for criminal contempt. The court affirmed the first contempt conviction where the record fully supported the judge's findings that defendant's profane language in the courtroom constituted intentional misbehavior that obstructed the administration of justice. Because the second contempt conviction resulted from a summary proceeding erroneously denying defendant his opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, the court concluded that this error affected his substantial rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed in Case No. 11-4963 and reversed in Case No. 11-4965. View "United States v. Peoples" on Justia Law

Approximately three months before respondent was to be released from federal prison, the government sought to commit him as a "sexually dangerous person," 18 U.S.C.A. 4248(a), under the civil-commitment provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court held that the government failed to prove that respondent suffered from pedophilia and failed to prove he would have serious difficulty refraining from re-offending. Thus, the district court dismissed the petition and ordered respondent released. The government subsequently appealed. The court held that the district court erred in its conclusion that the application of the Act to respondent violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The court also held, among other things, that the record did not support the district court's determination that respondent did not suffer from various mental illnesses, abnormalities, or disorders because he no longer suffered from pedophilia. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.

Defendant appealed his conviction for possessing a firearm while a convicted felon and the district court's imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment. The court affirmed the conviction but concluded, however, that the district court erred in applying the murder cross-reference provision in U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(c)(1) and in treating as relevant conduct a murder that occurred during the course of an unrelated and uncharged offense, which error substantially increased defendant's advisory Guidelines range. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence for his role in a bank robbery and mid-escape home intrusion, which ended in the death of an elderly woman who died of a heart attack. The court found that only one of defendant's contentions had merit - that the district court erred in instructing the jury on an offense not charged in the indictment. Therefore, the court vacated the conviction and sentence on the uncharged death results offense and remanded for entry of a judgment of conviction on Count Four regarding the forced accompaniment offense and for appropriate resentencing proceedings. The court affirmed the judgment in all other respects.

Defendant was convicted of drug charges in 2004 and almost six years later, he filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 seeking to vacate his sentence in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder. Because the Supreme Court's decision in Carachuri at most altered the procedural requirements that must be followed in applying recidivist enhancements and did not alter the range of conduct or the class of persons subject to criminal punishment, the court held that Carachuri was a procedural rule. Therefore, Carachuri was not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Thus, defendant's section 2255 motion must be dismissed as untimely pursuant to section 2255(f)(3).

This matter was previously before the Fourth Circuit on appeal. Petitioner Justin Michael Wolfe, a Virginia prisoner, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by the Commonwealth in 2002. By its decision in 2009, the Court remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, "Wolfe I" instructed the district court to determine whether Petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing and other discovery; to decide in the first instance whether, under "Schlup v. Delo," (513 U.S. 298 (1995)), Petitioner had made a sufficient showing of actual innocence to clear any procedural bars to his constitutional claims; and to assess Petitioner claim, among others, that the prosecution had contravened his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, as recognized in "Brady v. Maryland," (373 U.S. 83 (1963)), by suppressing favorable and material evidence. On remand, the district court heeded the Fourth Circuit's "Wolfe I" mandate, authorized appropriate discovery and conducted an evidentiary hearing, and ruled in Petitioner's favor on the Schlup issue and his Brady and two additional claims. The court vacated Petitioner's capital murder and other convictions, and ordered the Commonwealth to either retry him within 120 days or release him unconditionally from custody. The judgment was stayed pending this appeal by the Commonwealth, which was initiated on its behalf by Respondent Harold Clarke, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections. The Commonwealth challenged the remand proceedings from start to finish, contending that the district court erred in its procedural and substantive rulings. Because the Fourth Circuit concluded that the court's award of habeas corpus relief on Petitioner's Brady claim was not made in error, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment.

A jury convicted Defendant Earl Whittley Davis of various federal offenses arising from a course of conduct that included the armed robbery and murder during that robbery of an armored car employee, Jason Schwindler, as well as a subsequent carjacking. On appeal, Defendant challenged the use of DNA evidence against him at trial, and also argued that the district court erred in excluding expert testimony proffered by Defendant in an attempt to undermine an eyewitness identification of him. Upon review of the matter, the Fourth Circuit found no error and affirmed the judgment of the district court.