Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Hysen Sherifi, who was convicted of five federal offenses related to his participation in a terrorism conspiracy. Sherifi was initially sentenced to 540 months' imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court later ruled that certain applications of a statute under which Sherifi was twice convicted were unconstitutional. Consequently, Sherifi's convictions under this statute were set aside, and he was resentenced to 516 months' imprisonment for the remaining three counts.The district court in the Eastern District of North Carolina initially sentenced Sherifi. The court applied the Sentencing Guidelines, finding a total offense level of 43 and a criminal history category of VI. Sherifi appealed his convictions and sentences, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Sherifi argued that his resentencing was procedurally flawed and that he was sentenced based on facts not found by the jury. However, the court found no reversible error and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court held that the district court adequately explained its sentence, applied the relevant factors, and granted Sherifi's request for a downward variance based on his individual circumstances. The court also rejected Sherifi's argument that his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated, as well as his contention that the district court erred by applying a hate-crime enhancement. View "United States v. Sherifi" on Justia Law

The case involves Okello Chatrie, who was convicted for robbing a credit union in Virginia. The police, unable to identify the suspect from security footage and witness interviews, obtained a geofence warrant to access Google's Location History data. This data revealed that Chatrie's phone was in the vicinity of the bank during the robbery. Chatrie was subsequently indicted and pleaded not guilty, moving to suppress the evidence obtained via the geofence warrant.The district court denied Chatrie's motion to suppress, citing the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Chatrie entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to 141 months' imprisonment and 3 years' supervised release. He appealed, arguing that the geofence warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that the fruits of the warrant should be suppressed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Chatrie did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the two hours’ worth of Location History data voluntarily exposed to Google. Therefore, the government did not conduct a Fourth Amendment search when it obtained this information from Google. The court rejected Chatrie's argument that the geofence warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights, stating that he voluntarily exposed his location information to Google by opting into Location History. The court also noted that the information obtained was far less revealing than that obtained in previous cases involving long-term surveillance. View "United States v. Chatrie" on Justia Law

The case involves Zackary Ellis Sanders, who was convicted of multiple offenses related to the illegal production, receipt, and possession of child pornography. Sanders appealed his conviction, arguing that the court erred in denying motions to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant for his residence, in admitting statements he made to FBI agents during the search of his residence, in excluding evidence of the victims’ voluntary participation in the production of child pornography, and in giving certain jury instructions.The court rejected each of Sanders’s appellate contentions and affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court found that the search warrant was valid and that Sanders was not entitled to a hearing to probe the truthfulness of an affidavit used to support the search warrant. The court also found that Sanders’s statements to the FBI agents were not in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that evidence of the victims’ voluntary participation in the production of child pornography was irrelevant and properly excluded. Finally, the court found no error in the jury instructions given by the district court. View "United States v. Sanders" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Guy Bowman, was convicted of distributing methamphetamine and conspiring to do so. Law enforcement officers executed a search warrant on Bowman's property, where they found evidence of drug distribution. Bowman was later located and arrested at a hotel, where he made incriminating statements to officers. He was subsequently indicted on two counts related to drug distribution.Prior to his trial, Bowman filed a motion to suppress his initial statements to the officers, arguing that they were made before he was read his Miranda rights. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, determining that Bowman had not been interrogated before making the statements in question. Bowman also objected to the jury selection process, arguing that the district court had refused to ask his proposed questions and had provided him with less information about the jurors than was provided to the government.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Bowman's convictions. The court found that the district court had not erred in denying Bowman's motion to suppress without an evidentiary hearing, as there were no material factual disputes warranting a hearing. The court also found that the district court had not violated Bowman's Sixth Amendment rights during jury selection, as it had asked sufficient questions to uncover bias and had not denied Bowman his peremptory strikes. Finally, the court found that the district court had not abused its discretion in refusing to play the entirety of Bowman's jail calls with a co-defendant during closing arguments. View "United States v. Bowman" on Justia Law

Willie Slocum, Jr. appealed the denial of his motion to correct, vacate, or set aside his convictions and sentences based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Slocum was indicted on two counts of drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, but argued that the two charged conspiracies were actually one. He claimed that he was punished twice for the same conspiracy in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise a double jeopardy challenge before the trial court. The district court denied his motion without ordering a response from the government or holding an evidentiary hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that the district court erred in its decision. The appellate court determined that Slocum was indeed punished twice for a single conspiracy in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. However, the court noted that it was unclear whether trial counsel had a strategic reason for failing to raise a double jeopardy challenge. The court concluded that Slocum was entitled to an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) where the performance of his trial counsel could be assessed. Therefore, the court vacated the district court’s denial of Slocum’s § 2255 motion and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Slocum’s ineffective assistance claim. View "United States v. Slocum" on Justia Law

The case involves Douglas Damon Whitley, who was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery, federal carjacking, and a firearm offense in connection with his theft of a Peloton delivery van and its contents. Whitley was sentenced to concurrent 84-month prison terms for the robbery and carjacking convictions. On appeal, Whitley argued that his convictions and sentences for both offenses violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, as he believed Hobbs Act robbery to be a lesser included offense of carjacking. He also contended that there was insufficient evidence of the specific intent needed to convict him of federal carjacking.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Whitley and his co-defendant, Kindal Robinson, pleaded not guilty and proceeded to a joint jury trial. The jury found them both guilty of all charges. Whitley then filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that his convictions for both Hobbs Act robbery and federal carjacking violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. He also argued that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence of his specific intent to cause death or serious bodily harm, an essential element of federal carjacking. The district court denied Whitley’s motion, determining that Hobbs Act robbery is not a lesser included offense of carjacking and that a reasonable jury could have found that Whitley had the specific intent to kill or seriously injure the van driver.The case was then reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court disagreed with Whitley's arguments and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court found that the jurisdictional elements of Hobbs Act robbery and federal carjacking differed, meaning that the two offenses were not the same under the Blockburger test. The court also found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Whitley had the specific intent to cause death or serious bodily harm, thus rejecting Whitley's sufficiency challenge. View "US v. Whitley" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Dedre Feyijinmi, who filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and sought to discharge a restitution debt. In 2006, Feyijinmi was found guilty of welfare fraud in Maryland state court and was sentenced to three years' probation. The court also ordered $14,487 in restitution, which was recorded as a civil judgment. After Feyijinmi's probation ended, the outstanding balance was transferred to the State's Central Collection Unit. Later, Feyijinmi's criminal records were expunged, but her restitution obligation remained, leading to the garnishment of her wages.The bankruptcy court and the district court both rejected Feyijinmi's arguments that her restitution debt was dischargeable. Feyijinmi argued that the Bankruptcy Code's provision excluding a debt "for restitution...included in a sentence on the debtor's conviction of a crime" did not apply to her because she was not formally convicted under Maryland law. She also contended that the debt was discharged because the state of Maryland identified the debt as dischargeable court fees on its proof of claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that Feyijinmi's probation before judgment qualified as a conviction under federal law, as it was based on a finding of guilt. The court also ruled that the restitution was part of a sentence, even without a formal judgment. The court rejected Feyijinmi's claim that the State waived its right to collect the debt post-discharge by labeling it as "Court Ordered Fees" on its proof of claim. The court also dismissed Feyijinmi's claim of prejudice, finding no evidence of bad faith or unreasonable delay in filing the amendment, impact on other claimants, reliance by the debtor or creditors, or change of the debtor's position. View "Feyijinmi v. State of Maryland Central Collection Unit" on Justia Law

Gilbert Devon Melvin, after serving over 20 years in federal prison for drug and firearm offenses, was released in March 2021 and began a five-year term of supervised release. In August 2023, Melvin's mental health deteriorated, and he was arrested for trespassing. At the revocation hearing, the district court initially agreed to terminate Melvin's supervised release and enter a time-served sentence. However, Melvin had an outburst in court, which led the court to conclude that he posed a danger to the public and his probation officers. As a result, the court withdrew its initial agreement to a time-served sentence and instead decided to maintain Melvin's supervised release with an additional mental health condition.The district court's decision was based on Melvin's behavior during the revocation hearing. The court initially agreed to terminate Melvin's supervised release and enter a time-served sentence. However, after Melvin's outburst, the court concluded that he posed a danger to the public and his probation officers. The court then withdrew its initial agreement and decided to maintain Melvin's supervised release with an additional mental health condition.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Melvin argued that the district court lacked the authority to withdraw or modify the time-served sentence it had initially agreed to impose. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, affirming the district court's decision. The court held that a sentence is not imposed until it has been unequivocally pronounced during the sentencing hearing, and there has been a formal break in the proceedings from which to logically and reasonably conclude that sentencing had finished. The court found that the district court's initial acceptance of a time-served sentence was tentative and that the court had the authority to modify that sentence when Melvin addressed the bench only moments later, during the course of the same sentencing hearing. View "US v. Melvin" on Justia Law

The case involves Quentin Lowell Horsley, who was convicted of conspiring to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine base, as well as three counts of distributing cocaine. The evidence against Horsley included witness testimony, text messages, evidence of controlled buys, and drugs and cash seized during searches. Horsley challenged the admission of several items of evidence, including a cellphone seized without a warrant and the search of a car tied to him. He also challenged the testimony of an officer who interpreted text messages and the handling of the verdict form by the district court.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Horsley's motion to suppress the cellphone and the fruits of the car search. The court also allowed the officer's testimony and handled the verdict form in a way that Horsley contested.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in failing to suppress the evidence from the cellphone seized at the time of Horsley's arrest, but given the weight of the evidence against Horsley, the error was harmless. The court also held that the search of the car and its contents was proper, and that the district court did not plainly err in allowing the officer's testimony. The court found no error in connection with the district court’s handling of the verdict form. Therefore, the court affirmed the conviction. View "US v. Horsley" on Justia Law

Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership, a company that constructs, manages, designs, and repairs billboards, clashed with Beaufort County over the county's billboard policy. The county sought to phase out billboards within its borders by prohibiting the construction of new billboards and restricting structural repairs of old ones. Adams was issued a criminal citation for performing structural repairs on two old billboards without seeking authorization. Additionally, Adams filed eleven applications requesting permits to construct new commercial billboards with digital displays, each of which was denied. Adams sought to challenge Beaufort County’s local ordinance regulating billboards, along with several other local sign regulations.The district court dismissed all of Adams’s claims with prejudice. The claims related to the criminal citation were dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine, and those related to the permit denials were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Adams appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with each of the district court’s dismissal determinations. However, it noted that the claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction should have been dismissed without prejudice. The court remanded those claims with the instruction that their dismissal be amended to dismissal without prejudice. The court also found that Adams did not have standing to challenge certain provisions of the county's sign ordinance, as it had not demonstrated that it had been adversely affected by those provisions. The court concluded that the case belongs in state court due to the state's interest in land-use planning and development, the ongoing state court proceedings, and the jurisdictional hurdles faced by Adams. View "Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership v. Beaufort County" on Justia Law