Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Telly Armstrong pled guilty in March 2005 to two counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and was sentenced to 384 months in prison. Armstrong later filed a motion for compassionate release, arguing that the disparity between his original sentence and the sentence he would receive under current law constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief. The district court acknowledged the disparity but denied the motion, citing Armstrong's extensive criminal history and the violent nature of his offenses.Armstrong appealed the denial of his compassionate release motion and subsequently filed a pro se motion for reconsideration in the district court. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration, stating that Armstrong's arguments were without merit. Armstrong then appealed the denial of his motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The principal question was whether Fed. R. Crim. P. 37 allows district courts to deny motions for reconsideration while an appeal of the underlying order is pending. The Fourth Circuit held that Rule 37 does grant such authority, allowing district courts to deny, defer, or provide an indicative ruling on motions for reconsideration during a pending appeal. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Armstrong's motion for reconsideration, clarifying that the district court acted within its discretion under Rule 37. The court also noted that arguments raised by the government regarding the timeliness and propriety of Armstrong's motion for reconsideration were waived as they were not raised in the lower court. View "US v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

Melissa Barrett was serving a 168-month sentence for federal drug offenses when Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines took effect. This amendment, made retroactive by the Sentencing Commission, limited the impact of "status points" used in calculating Barrett's original Guideline range. Barrett moved to reduce her sentence to 120 months based on this amendment. The government agreed she was eligible for a reduction but disagreed on the scope of the amendment's retroactive effect. Barrett argued that the amendment affected both her criminal history category and her offense level, while the government contended it only applied to her criminal history category. The district court sided with the government and reduced Barrett's sentence to 150 months.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia initially reviewed the case. The court recognized Barrett's eligibility for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) due to Amendment 821 but concluded that the amendment only applied to her criminal history category, not her offense level. Consequently, the court reduced her sentence to 150 months, reflecting a revised Guideline range of 135 to 168 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred by not giving full retroactive effect to Amendment 821. The Fourth Circuit determined that the amendment should apply to both Barrett's criminal history category and her offense level. The court explained that the policy statement at § 1B1.10(b)(1) requires determining the amended guideline range, which includes both the criminal history category and the offense level. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further consideration of Barrett's motion, instructing the lower court to determine if Barrett qualifies for the offense-level reduction under § 2D1.1(b)(17). View "US v. Barrett" on Justia Law

James Ervin pleaded guilty to possessing a semi-automatic rifle as a convicted felon, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He later sought to withdraw his guilty plea through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and that the government provided false inculpatory information about the rifle. Ervin's arguments centered on the interpretation of the phrase “in or affecting commerce” in § 922(g).The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied Ervin's motion to vacate his plea. The court found that the rifle had traveled in interstate commerce, thus meeting the statutory requirement. Ervin's ineffective assistance claim failed because he could not establish prejudice, as the firearm's interstate travel was sufficient to satisfy the commerce element of § 922(g). The court also denied his motion for reconsideration and his request for a certificate of appealability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the phrase “in or affecting commerce” in § 922(g) should be interpreted broadly, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Scarborough v. United States. The court found that the rifle, which traveled from North Carolina to Louisiana, Georgia, and back to North Carolina, met the interstate commerce requirement. Consequently, Ervin's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations were rejected. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Ervin's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, concluding that his interpretation of the statute was incorrect and that his defense would have been meritless. View "United States v. Ervin" on Justia Law

Sammy Lee Ellis, Jr. shot Lamar Gross, the son of his estranged fiancé Dionne Beatty, in the abdomen after a heated argument. Ellis, who had been drinking, was charged with illegally possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon. The U.S. Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report that applied a cross-reference to attempted murder under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which Ellis contested.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina applied the attempted murder cross-reference over Ellis's objections, determining it to be the operative base offense level for sentencing. Ellis argued that the district court failed to consider a voluntary intoxication defense to attempted murder and that there was insufficient evidence to support the cross-reference. The district court found Gross's testimony credible and concluded that Ellis's actions amounted to attempted murder, sentencing him to 97 months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court correctly applied the attempted murder cross-reference, noting that under South Carolina law, voluntary intoxication is not a defense unless it results in permanent insanity, which was not the case here. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the district court's conclusion that Ellis intended to kill Gross, based on the circumstances and credible testimony. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Ellis" on Justia Law

Gerald Wheeler was convicted in 2007 of various drug and firearm offenses and sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment. In 2018, one of his convictions was vacated, and he was resentenced to time served with a four-year term of supervised release starting in March 2019. In January 2023, Wheeler's probation officer filed a petition to modify his supervision conditions due to new charges of felony assault by strangulation and misdemeanor assault on a female. The district court ordered revocation proceedings instead.A United States Magistrate Judge found no probable cause for the felony assault charge but found probable cause for the misdemeanor assault charge. Wheeler remained on bond pending the final revocation hearing. During the hearing, the district court admitted hearsay evidence from the alleged victim, Nyasia Mobley, despite her absence. The court found that the government made sufficient efforts to secure her presence and deemed her statements reliable. The court ultimately found Wheeler violated his supervised release and sentenced him to six months of imprisonment followed by an additional year of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by not properly balancing Wheeler's interest in confronting Mobley against the government's reasons for not producing her. The court also found that the government did not provide a satisfactory explanation for Mobley's absence, as the probation officer made only a single attempt to serve her. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court's error was not harmless, as the hearsay evidence was essential to the finding of violation. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the Revocation Petition. View "US v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

Tyzeem Kwazhon Nixon pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. While awaiting sentencing, he committed several violent acts, including multiple stabbings. The district court sentenced Nixon to more than double the Sentencing Guidelines range, primarily based on his violent behavior while incarcerated. The court also disregarded a report from a qualified medical expert, which attributed Nixon's violent conduct to his untreated mental health condition and suggested that proper treatment would mitigate his threat to society.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina sentenced Nixon to 114 months, significantly above the Guidelines range of 41 to 51 months. The court justified the upward departure by citing Nixon's violent acts while awaiting sentencing and his criminal history. The court rejected the expert's report without counterevidence, stating it did not find the report credible. Nixon appealed the sentence, arguing that the district court's reliance on dissimilar conduct, failure to consider intermediate categories, and rejection of expert testimony rendered the sentence procedurally unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found the district court's sentence procedurally unreasonable. The appellate court held that the district court improperly relied on dissimilar conduct for the upward departure, failed to consider intermediate criminal history categories, and erroneously rejected the expert testimony without justification. The Fourth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, instructing the district court to recalculate Nixon's criminal history category without improper consideration of dissimilar conduct, to consider intermediate categories, and to properly evaluate the expert testimony. View "US v. Nixon" on Justia Law

A father, Scott Williams, and his son, Taeyan Williams, were convicted by a federal jury of various drug-related offenses, including conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine. The case stemmed from an investigation into the disappearance of a drug dealer, Noah Smothers, who supplied drugs to Scott and Taeyan. A search of Scott's home revealed large quantities of drugs, firearms, and cash. Both Scott and Taeyan were found guilty of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, while Scott was also convicted of additional charges related to methamphetamine and evidence destruction.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied Scott's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search, despite his claim that law enforcement failed to knock and announce before entering. The court held that suppression was not the appropriate remedy. Scott and Taeyan were sentenced to 276 months and 150 months in prison, respectively, followed by five years of supervised release. Both appealed their convictions and sentences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Taeyan's conviction, finding sufficient evidence to support his possession with intent to distribute charges, based on his connection to the drugs found in Scott's home. The court also upheld the district court's denial of Scott's motion to suppress, citing exigent circumstances that justified the no-knock entry. Additionally, the court rejected Scott's request for a sentence reduction under the newly promulgated U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, advising him to seek relief through a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Finally, the court found no improper delegation of judicial authority in the conditions of Scott's supervised release, affirming the district court's judgments in their entirety. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Police officers responded to a noise complaint at a house party in Sanford, North Carolina, on September 12, 2021. They heard gunshots and saw the defendant, Chad Marques Jennings, run to a van and speed away. After a chase, officers detained Jennings, who admitted to having a gun in his waistband. Bullet casings found at the scene matched Jennings' gun. Jennings, a convicted felon, was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and pled guilty.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina held a sentencing hearing where Jennings' attorney spoke, and Jennings was invited to address the court. Jennings spoke about his struggles with alcoholism, read a poem, and a prepared speech. The court interrupted Jennings twice with questions and later prevented him from reading a letter to his mother, focusing instead on questioning him about his criminal history. The court sentenced Jennings to the statutory maximum of 120 months, citing the seriousness of the offense and his criminal history. Jennings appealed, arguing that the court denied him the full exercise of his allocution right.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in its handling of Jennings' allocution. The court found that the district court's interruptions were permissible clarifying questions and that the exclusion of the letter to Jennings' mother was within the court's discretion to limit irrelevant or repetitive information. The court concluded that Jennings was given a reasonable opportunity for allocution and affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence. View "United States v. Jennings" on Justia Law

William Davis Jr. was arrested for reckless driving after police observed him using a handheld device while driving. During the arrest, officers discovered a firearm hidden in his waistband. Davis, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court varied upward from the Sentencing Guidelines range of 21 to 27 months and imposed a sentence of 72 months. Davis appealed, arguing that the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia initially calculated Davis's Sentencing Guidelines range as 57 to 71 months, based on a base offense level of 24 due to his prior felony convictions for controlled substance offenses. However, the court later applied the categorical approach from United States v. Campbell, which led to a recalculated base offense level of 14 and a revised Guidelines range of 21 to 27 months. Despite this, the district court granted the government's motion for an upward variance, citing Davis's extensive criminal history and the seriousness of his offense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the district court had conducted an individualized assessment of the facts and arguments, adequately explained its reasoning, and properly considered the § 3553(a) factors. The court emphasized that the district court's findings regarding the seriousness of Davis's offense and his extensive criminal history justified the upward variance. The appellate court concluded that the 72-month sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "US v. Davis" on Justia Law

Rhonda and Robert Notgrass fraudulently obtained benefits from the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program by falsely claiming unemployment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Robert, a minister, and Rhonda, his wife, were ineligible for these benefits as Robert was fired for reasons unrelated to the pandemic, and Rhonda had not lost her job. They both pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and were sentenced to probation by the district court.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia sentenced the Notgrasses to five years of probation, including several conditions. The Notgrasses appealed four of these conditions: obtaining permission before leaving their judicial district, prohibition on possessing dangerous weapons, registering with an unemployment agency, and Robert's participation in a supervised mental-health treatment program. They argued that these conditions were both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court first determined that the Notgrasses' appellate waiver did not cover challenges to probation conditions, allowing the appeal to proceed. On the merits, the court found that the district court had adequately explained the conditions in light of the Notgrasses' objections. The travel-permission and weapons prohibition conditions were standard and self-evident, while the unemployment registration and mental-health treatment conditions were tailored to the Notgrasses' specific circumstances. The court held that all four conditions were reasonably related to the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and were not an abuse of discretion.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentences, finding the probation conditions both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "US v. Notgrass" on Justia Law