Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial in 2009, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base and a related firearms conspiracy. The district court applied the maximum base offense level for drug-trafficking crimes under the Guidelines given the quantity of cocaine base attributable to Defendant. Following the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines with respect to cocaine base offenses by increasing the minimum quantity of cocaine base necessary to trigger the maximum base offense level from 8.4 to 25.2 kilograms. In 2015, Defendant moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The district court denied the motion, concluding that the quantity of controlled substance in the offense of conviction rendered Defendant ineligible for a sentence reduction under the retroactive crack amendment. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court adequately explained why it found Defendant ineligible; and (2) the district court did not err by finding Defendant responsible for at least 25.2 kilograms of cocaine base. View "United States v. Peters" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of the BIA's decision finding him removable based on his conviction for “Third Degree Sex Offense” under Maryland Criminal Law Article 3-307. The court concluded that the BIA erred as a matter of law, and held that petitioner's conviction does not constitute the aggravated felony of “sexual abuse of a minor” under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(A), because Maryland Criminal Law Article 3-307 proscribes more conduct than does the generic federal offense. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the order of removal, and ordered his immediate release from DHS custody. View "Larios-Reyes v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks review of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The trial judge rejected the plea agreement between defendant and the state prosecutor, off the record and without giving reasons other than stating that he was "ready to try a case." Defendant contends that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to object to the rejection of the plea agreement and preserve the issue for appellate review. In Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that there is no federal right that a plea be accepted by a judge. Furthermore, the court rejected defendant's contention that Santobello v. New York announced a constitutional due process right that a judge accept a plea bargain. Therefore, the court concluded that defendant was not prejudiced by his attorney’s failure to make this meritless objection. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rodriguez v. Bush" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder, sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, challenging the imposition of a capital sentence in the South Carolina courts. Petitioner raised seven grounds for relief, including prosecutorial misconduct and juror bias. The district court granted relief independently on both grounds, vacated petitioner's death sentence, and remanded for resentencing. According to the district court, the state courts unreasonably determined that the “King Kong” comment, “black Indians” testimony, and “blonde-headed lady” remark were not intentional appeals to racial prejudice. The district court also found unreasonable the PCR court’s determination that a juror was not racially biased at the time of the sentencing. Respondents appealed. The court concluded that the state courts unreasonably determined that the prosecutor’s references to petitioner during closing argument were not appeals to racial prejudice. Drawing on this flawed factual finding, the state courts unreasonably concluded that petitioner's right to due process was not violated. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bennett v. Stirling" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced defendant to 15 years in prison pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on defendant's two predicate drug offenses and one predicate violent felony. The court agreed with the district court's determination that defendant's prior conviction for South Carolina strong arm robbery qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Doctor" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempting to persuade minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity and sentenced to 120 months in prison and a lifetime of supervised release. On appeal defendant contends that the district court erred by: (1) improperly refusing to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the purportedly unlawful searches of defendant’s vehicle; (2) violating Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by failing to inform defendant’s counsel of its jury instructions prior to closing arguments; (3) improperly instructing the jury as to the meaning of “induce” in 18 U.S.C. 2422(b); and (4) improperly holding that the government produced sufficient evidence to sustain defendant’s conviction. The court rejected defendant's arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Clarke" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to attempting to enter a bank with the intent to commit a felony affecting it, and a larceny. The court agreed with defendant that the robbery guideline is inapplicable in this case because his indictment contained no mention of the robbery element of force and violence, intimidation, or extortion. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Williams, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for a nonhomicide offense he committed at the age of sixteen. After Graham v. Florida was decided, petitioner sought postconviction relief but the state courts denied it. The court concluded that petitioner's state court adjudication constituted an unreasonable application of Graham where Virginia courts unreasonably ignored the plain language of the procedures governing review of petitions for geriatric release, which authorize the State Parole Board to deny geriatric release for any reason, without considering a juvenile offender’s maturity and rehabilitation. In light of the lack of governing standards, the court concluded that it was objectively unreasonable for the state courts to conclude that geriatric release affords petitioner with the “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” Graham demands. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas relief and remanded so that petitioner can be resentenced in accordance with Graham and the Eighth Amendment. View "LeBlanc v. Mathena" on Justia Law

A federal grand jury indicted Maria Rosalba Alvarado McTague and Felix Chujoy on charges of visa fraud and various immigration violations stemming from their operation of a Peruvian restaurant in Virginia. In this interlocutory appeal, the government challenges the district court's order excluding grand jury testimony from use at trial without having found prosecutorial misconduct or bad faith in the underlying grand jury proceeding. The court found that the district court abused its discretion where it failed to provide a sufficient explanation for its decision, its stated reasons do not comport with precedent or the facts of record, and its conclusion regarding “fundamental fairness” provides no legal standard by which to measure the appropriateness of the evidentiary exclusion. Nevertheless, the court rejected the government’s argument that the district court may never exclude grand jury evidence except as a sanction for prosecutorial misconduct. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. McTague" on Justia Law

Petitioner was indicted for murder and other crimes committed while he was a minor over twenty years ago. Petitioner pled guilty in exchange for a life sentence with the opportunity for parole. Petitioner now challenges the validity of his guilty plea and appeals the district court’s denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition. The court granted a certificate of appealability on the limited issue of whether Roper v. Simmons, which invalidated the death penalty for juvenile offenders, may be applied retroactively to invalidate petitioner's guilty plea. The court held that Roper does not provide an avenue for relief and concluded that the district court correctly found that Roper did not apply to situations where a defendant pled guilty to a non-capital sentence to avoid the possibility of a capital sentence. Furthermore, in light of Brady v. United States, the court found no infirmity in the plea that petitioner entered. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of his federal habeas petition. View "Dingle v. Stevenson" on Justia Law