Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Dr. Ron Elfenbein, who runs an urgent-care clinic in Maryland, was charged with healthcare fraud for allegedly overbilling insurers by using high-level codes for simple COVID-19 tests and submitting false medical records. The clinic, which shifted to primarily COVID-19 testing during the pandemic, billed five patient visits at level four, which is typically reserved for more complex medical decision-making.In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, a jury found Elfenbein guilty on all charges after an 11-day trial. However, the district court acquitted him, reasoning that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court also conditionally granted a new trial, citing the close nature of the case and the significant evidence that came from Elfenbein's own witnesses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the jury had enough evidence to convict Elfenbein, as the government presented sufficient testimony and documentation to support the charges of overbilling and submitting false records. The court noted that the jury could reasonably conclude that the level-four codes were inappropriate for the simple COVID-19 tests and that the medical records were materially false.However, the Fourth Circuit also affirmed the district court's decision to grant a new trial. The appellate court acknowledged that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial, given the weaknesses in the government's case-in-chief and the significant evidence that came from the defense. The case was remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Elfenbein" on Justia Law

Marilyn Mosby, the former Baltimore City State’s Attorney, was convicted of mortgage fraud and perjury in separate jury trials. She appealed her perjury convictions, arguing that the question on the form she completed to withdraw funds from her retirement account was fundamentally ambiguous. She also contended that the district court improperly admitted evidence regarding her use of the withdrawn funds. For her mortgage fraud conviction, she argued that the district court gave an erroneous venue instruction, the evidence did not support the jury’s finding on venue, and the court improperly allowed cross-examination about her perjury convictions. Additionally, she challenged the district court’s forfeiture order as unauthorized and excessive.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied Mosby’s motion to dismiss the perjury counts, finding the term “adverse financial consequences” on the form was not fundamentally ambiguous. The court also allowed evidence of how Mosby used the withdrawn funds, deeming it relevant to whether she experienced adverse financial consequences due to COVID-19. Mosby was convicted on both perjury counts. In her mortgage fraud trial, the court permitted cross-examination about her perjury convictions and gave a jury instruction on venue that Mosby argued was improper. She was convicted of mortgage fraud based on a false gift letter used to purchase a property in Florida.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Mosby’s perjury convictions, finding no error in the district court’s rulings. However, the appellate court vacated her mortgage fraud conviction, agreeing that the district court’s jury instruction on venue was erroneous and could have led the jury to base its decision on preparatory acts rather than essential conduct elements. Consequently, the court also vacated the related forfeiture order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Mosby" on Justia Law

Shaheem Johnson was involved in a multi-state drug-trafficking enterprise during the 1990s, which led to the deaths of five people. Johnson was directly responsible for the deaths of Bernard Franklin and Richard Villa. He was charged with murder in aid of racketeering and other related offenses. Johnson was convicted by a jury and sentenced to two life terms plus 790 months in prison. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.Johnson filed a pro se motion for compassionate release in March 2021, which was supplemented by his counsel. The motion argued that the sentencing disparities between Johnson and his co-conspirators, who received significantly reduced sentences after cooperating with the government, constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Johnson's motion in part, reducing his sentence to 35 years in prison, citing the sentencing disparities as a key factor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the sentencing disparities between Johnson and his co-conspirators, Damein Piranti, Rickey Piranti, and Eldon Brown, weighed in favor of granting compassionate release. The court noted that the district court was entitled to consider these disparities, especially given the jury's findings regarding Johnson's lesser role in the killings. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order reducing Johnson's sentence. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The case involves Justin Michael Wolfe, who was convicted of hiring Owen Barber to murder Daniel Petrole in 2001. Barber, the key witness, initially testified against Wolfe, implicating him in the murder-for-hire scheme. Wolfe was sentenced to death, but Barber later recanted his testimony, claiming he was coerced by the Commonwealth of Virginia with threats of the death penalty. Wolfe's conviction was vacated by the district court due to Brady violations and other prosecutorial misconduct, and the Commonwealth was ordered to retry Wolfe or release him.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Wolfe habeas relief, finding that the Commonwealth had withheld exculpatory evidence and engaged in misconduct. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, but the Commonwealth continued to pursue charges against Wolfe. In a subsequent interview, Commonwealth officials again coerced Barber, leading him to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, making him unavailable as a witness for Wolfe's retrial. Wolfe ultimately pled guilty to avoid the death penalty, receiving a 41-year sentence.Wolfe filed a new habeas petition in the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting claims of vindictive prosecution and due process violations based on the Commonwealth's intimidation of Barber. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely and found that Wolfe failed to present new, reliable evidence of actual innocence under the Schlup standard. Wolfe appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.The Fourth Circuit held that Barber's new declaration, which exculpated Wolfe and explained his previous invocation of the Fifth Amendment due to Commonwealth threats, constituted new, reliable evidence. The court found that Barber's declaration was credible and that no reasonable juror would have convicted Wolfe if they had heard Barber's recantation. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for adjudication of Wolfe's substantive claims. View "Wolfe v. Dotson" on Justia Law

Stephen Simmons pled guilty to violating the National Firearms Act by possessing an unregistered auto sear, a device that converts semi-automatic firearms to fire like machineguns. On the day of his offense, Simmons tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. Although he was not prosecuted for any drug-related crime, the district court applied multiple sentencing enhancements, penalizing him for possessing the unregistered auto sear, additional auto sears, silencers, and firearms as an unlawful user of controlled substances. Simmons argued that these enhancements violated his Second Amendment rights and that the term "unlawful user of any controlled substance" was unconstitutionally vague.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia applied sentencing enhancements that increased Simmons's offense level due to his status as an unlawful user of controlled substances and his possession of multiple and stolen firearms. The court calculated his total offense level as 25, resulting in an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months' imprisonment. After applying a downward variance, the district court sentenced Simmons to 36 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected Simmons's Second Amendment challenge, noting that he conceded he had no constitutional right to possess auto sears or silencers, which are not protected by the Second Amendment. The court also dismissed his vagueness claim, as Simmons's conduct clearly fell within the definition of an "unlawful user" of controlled substances. However, the court found that the district court erred in applying sentencing enhancements for possessing ordinary firearms not covered by the National Firearms Act, as these firearms were not relevant to the offense for which Simmons was convicted. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit vacated Simmons's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. View "US v. Simmons" on Justia Law

Rashun Suncar was convicted of distributing fentanyl and challenged the application of a career offender enhancement to his sentence. This enhancement was based on two prior Pennsylvania state convictions for delivery of a controlled substance. Suncar argued that the Pennsylvania statute criminalizes offers to sell and attempted transfers of drugs, making it broader than the federal guidelines' definition of a controlled substance offense.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia applied the career offender enhancement, referencing the Third Circuit's decision in United States v. Dawson, which held that the Pennsylvania statute was an appropriate predicate for a career offender finding. The district court imposed a sentence of 92 months, noting that it would impose the same sentence even if the guideline determination was found incorrect.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected Suncar's argument that the Pennsylvania statute includes offers to sell, noting that the statute's language does not support this interpretation. The court also found that the statute's criminalization of attempted transfers does not make it overbroad, as an attempted transfer is considered a completed delivery under federal law and analogous state statutes. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the Pennsylvania statute is not categorically overbroad compared to the federal guidelines. View "United States v. Suncar" on Justia Law

Cristian Cabrera-Rivas was convicted by a jury of two drug offenses related to a methamphetamine deal. Cabrera-Rivas, who grew up in Honduras and has limited education and English proficiency, was involved in negotiating a meth deal with a confidential informant named Hector, who was working with the Department of Homeland Security. During the deal, Cabrera-Rivas vouched for the meth supplier, Marco Ramos-Garcia, and was present when the meth was delivered. The police arrested Cabrera-Rivas at the scene and found cash and nearly pure methamphetamine.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina found Cabrera-Rivas competent to stand trial based on a government psychologist's evaluation. The court denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal and precluded him from presenting certain affirmative defenses but allowed him to argue entrapment. The jury convicted him on both counts. Post-trial, the district court denied his motions for a new trial and a retrospective competency hearing, finding sufficient evidence for the convictions and no bad faith in the destruction of a recorded interview.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court found no clear error in the magistrate judge's competency ruling and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a second competency hearing. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convictions, noting that a reasonable jury could infer that Cabrera-Rivas had constructive possession of the meth. The court rejected Cabrera-Rivas's due process claim regarding the destroyed interview recording, as there was no evidence of bad faith. Finally, the court upheld the district court's refusal to instruct the jury on the public authority, innocent intent, outrageous conduct, and entrapment by estoppel defenses. View "US v. Cabrera-Rivas" on Justia Law

Law enforcement agents were surveilling a motel room in Charles Town, West Virginia, to arrest a woman. They saw Dehaven Craig leave the room and drive off. Craig had a significant criminal history, including prior felony convictions. After Craig left, agents entered the motel room, arrested the woman, and found a loaded .380 caliber pistol. The woman claimed the gun belonged to Craig. When Craig returned, officers stopped him and found 0.8 grams of cocaine base in his SUV. Craig was indicted on two drug charges and one charge for unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon.Craig and the government reached a plea agreement where Craig would plead guilty to the firearm charge, and the government would drop the drug charges and recommend a sentence within the Guidelines range. The plea agreement included a stipulation of facts relevant to sentencing. At the plea hearing, the government stated that the stipulation contained Craig’s total relevant conduct. The court accepted the plea, and the probation officer calculated Craig’s Guidelines range. The government sought two enhancements based on facts not included in the stipulation, which Craig objected to, but the probation officer and the district court overruled his objections, resulting in a higher Guidelines range and a 100-month sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the plea agreement stipulated to Craig’s total relevant conduct for sentencing purposes and that the government breached the agreement by seeking enhancements based on facts outside the stipulation. The court held that the government’s duty of candor did not excuse it from its commitments under the plea agreement. The court vacated Craig’s sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different district court judge. View "US v. Craig" on Justia Law

Victor Manuel Castro-Aleman, originally from El Salvador, was brought to the United States illegally in 1973 as a child. Over the years, he had multiple encounters with law enforcement, including four DUI convictions in Virginia between 2009 and 2014. In 2016, while serving a sentence for his fourth DUI, he was visited by ICE agents and subsequently issued a Notice to Appear in removal proceedings. He was ordered removed by an Immigration Judge (IJ) after failing to submit an asylum application and not appealing the removal order. Castro-Aleman reentered the United States illegally and was discovered in Virginia in 2023, leading to his indictment for illegal reentry.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Castro-Aleman's motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that his 2016 removal order was invalid due to due process violations. The district court found that he had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal the removal order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Castro-Aleman failed to demonstrate that his removal order was "fundamentally unfair" under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3). The court found that even if there were due process violations, such as the IJ's failure to inform him adequately of his right to appeal, Castro-Aleman could not show actual prejudice. His extensive criminal history and admissions during the removal hearing established multiple independent grounds for his removability, making any appeal futile. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of his motion to dismiss and upheld his conviction for illegal reentry. View "United States v. Castro-Aleman" on Justia Law

Duane Berry was indicted in 2015 for planting a fake bomb outside a building in Detroit. The district court in Michigan found him mentally incompetent to stand trial and committed him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 for a competency evaluation. After determining that his competency could not be restored, the court dismissed the charges against him in December 2019. Concerned about his potential danger to the public, the court ordered a psychological evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4246.The government faced delays due to a backlog at the evaluation facility and the COVID-19 pandemic. Berry was eventually evaluated, and the facility's director certified that his release would pose a substantial risk. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina held a hearing and found by clear and convincing evidence that Berry met the criteria for commitment under § 4246, as he was still in custody under § 4241 when the certification was filed.Berry appealed, arguing that he did not fall into any of the categories eligible for commitment under § 4246 and that the delay in filing the certification was unreasonable. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Berry was in lawful custody under § 4241 at the time of the certification. The court found the delay reasonable given the administrative challenges and the pandemic. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to commit Berry under § 4246, holding that the statutory provisions were followed correctly and that Berry's continued custody was lawful. View "United States v. Berry" on Justia Law