Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Brock Beeman was convicted by a federal jury of mailing three threatening letters to a prosecutor and an investigator involved in a previous criminal case against him, violating 18 U.S.C. § 876(c). Beeman appealed his conviction, challenging the district court's decisions on three grounds: the admission of an uncharged threatening letter, the empaneling of an anonymous jury, and the denial of his motion for a mistrial due to the prosecutor's improper statement during closing arguments.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia admitted the uncharged letter as res gestae evidence and under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), finding it provided necessary context for Beeman's animus and intent. The court also empaneled an anonymous jury due to Beeman's history of threatening behavior and potential for lengthy incarceration, while ensuring Beeman's rights were protected by providing his counsel with an unredacted juror list. During closing arguments, the prosecutor improperly suggested jurors consider their personal feelings about the threats, but the court immediately corrected this with a curative instruction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed Beeman's challenges for abuse of discretion. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the uncharged letter, as it was relevant to proving elements of the crime and not unfairly prejudicial. The court also upheld the empaneling of an anonymous jury, noting the district court's careful consideration of the factors and safeguards to protect Beeman's rights. Finally, the court determined that the prosecutor's improper statement during closing arguments did not prejudice Beeman, given the immediate correction and overwhelming evidence of his guilt.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding Beeman's conviction. View "US v. Beeman" on Justia Law

Luis Avila pleaded guilty to three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and (b)(1) for possessing material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. The probation officer calculated Avila’s advisory guideline range using Section 2G2.2 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which starts with a base offense level of 22 and includes several enhancements that increased Avila’s offense level to 35. The probation officer then applied a cross-reference under Section 2G2.2(c)(1), which increased the offense level to 38, resulting in a guidelines range of 168 to 210 months after a three-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility.Avila challenged the application of the cross-reference, arguing that his actions did not cause the creation of the sexually explicit material because the victims were already sending the same videos to other people. The government argued that Avila’s actions, including offering and paying money for specific videos, caused the victims to create and send the videos. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina overruled Avila’s objection and applied the cross-reference, sentencing him to 132 months of imprisonment followed by 30 years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court committed procedural error in sentencing Avila. The appellate court held that the district court’s factual findings were legally insufficient to support the application of the cross-reference under Section 2G2.2(c)(1). The court concluded that offering money for specific conduct and causing that conduct to happen are different, and proving the former does not prove the latter. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for resentencing. View "US v. Avila" on Justia Law

In May 2021, the appellant, along with a co-defendant, robbed a gas station in New Bern, North Carolina. The appellant entered the store armed with a revolver, pointed it at the cashier, struck the cashier on the head, and took money and cartons of cigarettes. The robbery was captured on surveillance video, and a witness provided a photo of the getaway vehicle. The next day, law enforcement located the vehicle and arrested the appellant and his co-defendant, recovering stolen items and the revolver used in the robbery.The appellant was indicted for robbery, using/brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He agreed to plead guilty to the first two counts and waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. The district court conducted a brief plea hearing and sentenced the appellant to 144 months of imprisonment. The appellant argued that his appeal waiver was invalid because the district court failed to properly conduct the plea hearing and did not acknowledge his mitigation arguments or provide an explanation for the sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the appellant’s appeal waiver was not knowingly and intelligently made. The court found that the district court failed to properly inform the appellant of the terms of the appeal waiver and did not ensure that he understood it. The court also noted that enforcing the appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice due to the district court’s repeated disregard for proper procedure. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit vacated the sentence as procedurally unreasonable and remanded the case for reassignment to a different district court judge for further proceedings. View "US v. Smith" on Justia Law

A nurse at a medical clinic where Dr. George P. Naum, III worked prescribed controlled substances without a doctor's supervision. The government prosecuted Naum for conspiracy and aiding and abetting the distribution of controlled substances outside the usual course of his professional practice, alleging he knew about the nurse’s conduct but did not stop it. A federal jury convicted Naum on these counts.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia handled the initial trial. Naum was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances outside the bounds of professional medical practice and four counts of aiding and abetting in the distribution of controlled substances outside the bounds of professional medical practice. Naum's motion for a new trial was denied, and he appealed. The Fourth Circuit initially affirmed the district court's decision.The United States Supreme Court later clarified in Ruan v. United States that to convict a defendant under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), the government must prove the defendant knew or intended that their conduct was unauthorized. Naum argued that the district court failed to instruct the jury on this requirement. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the jury instructions misstated the law post-Ruan but applied plain error review. The court concluded that Naum did not meet his burden of showing that the outcome of his trial would have been different with proper instructions. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Naum's conviction. View "United States v. Naum" on Justia Law

Nathaniel Powell pled guilty in 2016 to conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin. The United States Probation Office recommended a two-level sentence enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines for maintaining a premises for drug distribution, based on information from Powell’s co-defendant, Valerie Wilson. Wilson claimed she bought drugs from Powell at his residence and witnessed heroin processing there. Powell’s attorney, Lawrence Woodward, objected to the enhancement, questioning Wilson’s credibility and the sufficiency of the evidence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia overruled the objection and adopted the presentence report, sentencing Powell to 300 months in prison. Powell later filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate potentially exculpatory evidence, including a lease agreement showing someone else leased the premises during part of the relevant time. The district court dismissed most claims but held a hearing on this issue. Woodward testified he did not receive the lease and believed attacking Wilson’s credibility was the best strategy. The district court dismissed Powell’s claim, finding Woodward’s performance was not deficient and the lease would not have changed the outcome.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Woodward’s performance was not constitutionally deficient, as his strategy to attack Wilson’s credibility was reasonable. The court also found no prejudice, as the district court indicated it would have applied the same sentence even without the enhancement. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Powell’s § 2255 motion. View "United States v. Powell" on Justia Law

Eugenia Bautista Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order of removal based on her 2011 conviction for petit larceny under section 18.2-96 of the Virginia Code. The Board held that petit larceny categorically qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude, rendering Chavez ineligible for cancellation of removal. Chavez argued that a defendant in Virginia could be convicted of larceny for taking property that he or she sincerely but unreasonably believed was abandoned, which falls short of the requisite mental state for a crime involving moral turpitude. She also contended that petit larceny for taking property of de minimis value does not constitute sufficiently reprehensible conduct to make out a crime involving moral turpitude.The Immigration Judge ruled for the government, reasoning that he was required to find that petit larceny was a crime involving moral turpitude under the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Hernandez v. Holder. Chavez appealed to the Board, arguing that Virginia petit larceny did not require a culpable mental state and did not involve reprehensible conduct. The Board dismissed Chavez’s appeal, concluding that the offense required a culpable mental state and involved reprehensible conduct. Chavez then moved the Board to reconsider its decision, but a temporary Board member denied her motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and denied Chavez’s petition. The court held that Virginia petit larceny is a crime involving moral turpitude because it requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of property, which satisfies the culpable mental state requirement. The court also found that the offense involves reprehensible conduct, regardless of the value of the property taken. Additionally, the court rejected Chavez’s challenge to the authority of the temporary Board member who decided her reconsideration motion, citing its previous decision in Salomon-Guillen v. Garland. View "Chavez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The appellants, Jose Joya Parada, Oscar Armando Sorto Romero, Milton Portillo Rodriguez, and Juan Carlos Sandoval Rodriguez, were charged in 2018 with various racketeering offenses related to their involvement with the MS-13 gang. During jury selection, the government used peremptory strikes on several Black venirepersons, including Jurors 217 and 138. The appellants raised Batson challenges to these strikes, which the district court rejected. The trial proceeded, and during jury deliberations, Juror 9 tested positive for COVID-19. Over the appellants' objections, the district court decided to proceed with an eleven-member jury. The jury found some appellants guilty on all charges and others guilty on some charges.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the appellants' Batson challenges and decided to proceed with an eleven-member jury after Juror 9 tested positive for COVID-19. The appellants were subsequently found guilty of various charges. The appellants appealed, arguing that the district court erred in rejecting their Batson challenges and in proceeding with an eleven-member jury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in rejecting the Batson challenges, as the government provided race-neutral reasons for the peremptory strikes, and the district court found these reasons credible. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with an eleven-member jury, as it thoroughly considered all alternatives and found good cause to excuse Juror 9. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "US v. Parada" on Justia Law

M.B., a Pakistani woman, was forced into labor by her in-laws, Zahida Aman and her sons, Nauman and Rehan Chaudhri, after marrying another son, Salman. Upon arriving in Virginia, M.B. was isolated, had her documents confiscated, and was coerced into performing extensive household chores under threats of deportation and physical abuse. The abuse escalated over the years, including physical violence and psychological manipulation, until M.B. was eventually confined to a laundry room and later a garage annex. M.B. managed to escape in 2016 with the help of her brother and law enforcement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia convicted the defendants of conspiracy to commit forced labor, forced labor, and document servitude. The defendants appealed, arguing that the forced labor statute did not apply to familial relationships, that the government improperly struck jurors based on race, that prejudicial evidence was admitted, and that the jury was improperly instructed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the forced labor statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1589, applies broadly and includes familial relationships. The court found no Batson violation in the jury selection process, since the government's peremptory strikes were based on age, marital status, and childlessness, not race. The court also ruled that the evidence of abuse after the forced labor ended was intrinsic to the crime and necessary to complete the story. Finally, the court determined that the jury instructions were adequate, despite the defendants' objections.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions, concluding that the statute applied to the defendants' conduct and that the district court did not err in its rulings during the trial. View "U.S. v. Chaudhri" on Justia Law

In 2011, Winston Sylvester Oliver II and his co-defendant, Warren Brown, were convicted of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and use of a firearm during these crimes. Oliver's firearm convictions were later vacated, necessitating resentencing for the remaining convictions. At his resentencing, Oliver argued that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the court allowed Brown to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination due to his pending appeal. Oliver also contended that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia initially sentenced Oliver to 630 months in prison. After his firearm convictions were vacated, the court resentenced him to 610 months. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated his remaining firearm conviction and remanded for resentencing. At the second resentencing, Oliver's motion to recuse the entire bench of the Eastern District of Virginia was denied. The district court allowed Brown to invoke his Fifth Amendment right, excluded unauthenticated letters allegedly written by Brown, and calculated Oliver's Guidelines range, ultimately sentencing him to 480 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Brown to invoke his Fifth Amendment right, as his testimony could have had adverse consequences due to his pending appeal. The court also found that the district court did not err in applying sentencing enhancements for Oliver's leadership role, obstruction of justice, and firearm discharge. The court concluded that the 480-month sentence was substantively reasonable, considering Oliver's extensive criminal history and the impact on the victims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Oliver" on Justia Law

Anthony Williams was convicted of two drug offenses in 1999 and has been on supervised release since 2020. In March 2023, a woman Williams had been living with contacted the police, alleging that Williams had assaulted her by strangling and slapping her. The complainant provided photos of her injuries and reported symptoms consistent with strangulation. A police officer and a probation officer corroborated her account through interviews and evidence collection. The district court held a revocation hearing more than eight months later, during which the complainant was not present. The government introduced her out-of-court statements and other evidence, which Williams objected to as hearsay.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina admitted the statements, finding that the government showed good cause for the complainant's absence and that the statements were reliable. The court found Williams had committed the violations and sentenced him to 24 months of imprisonment followed by 12 months of supervised release. Williams appealed, arguing that the district court erred in admitting the hearsay evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the complainant's statements. The court found that the government made sufficient efforts to contact the complainant, establishing good cause for her absence. Additionally, the court determined that the complainant's statements were reliable, supported by corroborating evidence and consistent recounting. The balancing test weighed in favor of admissibility, and the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law