Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves defendant Anthony Gross, who was convicted for unlawful possession of a firearm after shooting and injuring a man in his family's driveway. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina sentenced Gross to 63 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Gross appealed his sentencing, challenging the court's calculation of the sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. He disputed the application of a sentencing enhancement for causing "serious bodily injury" and the use of the aggravated assault guideline. Gross also argued that the court should review its finding of serious bodily injury de novo (from the beginning).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court's finding of serious bodily injury should be reviewed for clear error rather than de novo. The court reasoned that adopting a de novo standard would challenge the authority of fact-finders. The court found that the district court did not err in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines, stating that the injury inflicted by Gross on the victim involved "extreme physical pain," which is sufficient to classify as "serious bodily injury" under the Guidelines.Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision to apply the aggravated assault guideline, as the victim had indeed sustained serious bodily injury. The court underscored the importance of deference to the district court's fact-finding role, emphasizing that it is not the role of the appellate court to reassess the district court's factual findings. The court concluded that the evidence presented was ample for the district court to find that the victim had sustained serious bodily injury, thus affirming Gross's sentence. View "United States v. Gross" on Justia Law

The case concerned Everett Maynard, a police officer in West Virginia, who was convicted of deprivation of rights under color of law. This conviction was based on his use of excessive force against an arrestee, Robert Wilfong, which resulted in Wilfong being hospitalized with a broken nose and lacerations on his upper head. During the trial, witnesses were required to wear face masks due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Maynard appealed his conviction, arguing that the mask requirement violated his Sixth Amendment rights, and that the district court erred in applying sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice and for causing "serious bodily injury."The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. It held that the mask requirement did not violate Maynard's Sixth Amendment right, as the protection against the spread of COVID-19 is an important public policy interest and the reliability of the witnesses’ testimony was assured. This was because the witnesses were under oath, cross-examined, and the jury could observe their demeanor. The court also found no error in the application of sentencing enhancements. The court agreed with the district court's finding that the injuries inflicted on Wilfong constituted "serious bodily injury," and affirmed the application of the obstruction of justice enhancement, finding that a defendant's perjurious testimony at trial is relevant to sentencing because it reflects on a defendant’s criminal history, willingness to obey the law, and general character. View "US v. Maynard" on Justia Law

The court case involves defendants Juan Alberto Ortiz-Orellana and Minor Perez-Chach, who were convicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering statute (VICAR). Ortiz and Perez were part of a gang known as MS-13 and were separately charged with murders related to their involvement in the gang in Maryland. Ortiz was also convicted of VICAR conspiracy to commit murder, discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and murder resulting from the same crime. Perez, on the other hand, was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and an alien in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Both defendants appealed their convictions and sentences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the government seizure of historical cell site location information (CSLI) without a warrant did not violate the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights due to the good faith exception. The court also upheld the use of summary exhibits and denied the defendants' claim that their sentences were substantially unreasonable. The court agreed with Ortiz that his firearm convictions must be vacated because the underlying offenses for each VICAR count could not qualify as a "crime of violence" after a recent ruling. The court also rejected Ortiz's claim that his RICO and VICAR convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. As a result, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for resentencing on certain counts. View "US v. Ortiz-Orellana" on Justia Law

The case involves the appellant, Reggie Pettus, who pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony. The controversy revolves around the sentencing of Pettus by the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Pettus challenged his sentence on four grounds. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found one of his challenges to be meritorious, leading to the vacating of the district court’s judgment and remanding the case for resentencing.The main issue of discussion in the appeal was the district court's application of an obstruction of justice enhancement to Pettus's sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court did not provide a sufficient explanation of its rationale for applying the enhancement, leaving the appellate court unable to conduct meaningful review. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for resentencing with a clear rationale for any applied enhancements. The court also addressed other issues that may arise during resentencing, including the application of a robbery cross-reference and objections to the proposed conditions of supervised release. View "US v. Pettus" on Justia Law

The case involves Richard Lewis, a man convicted in 2004 for conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs and unlawful firearm possession. Lewis began serving two concurrent 5-year terms of supervised release in 2010 after serving roughly seven years in prison. During the supervised release, Lewis was arrested and convicted under state law for three counts of manufacturing or distributing illegal drugs and sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment. Based on these violations, the district court revoked Lewis’s supervised release and sentenced him to 20 months’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively to his state sentence. Lewis appealed, arguing that the district court improperly considered the need for punishment and the seriousness of the violation, which he contended are factors prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed with Lewis's arguments. It held that the district court did not base Lewis's revocation sentence predominantly on the retributive factor, and the sentence was not plainly unreasonable. It also rejected Lewis's argument that Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines must be struck down as inconsistent with § 3583(e). The Court explained that Lewis's argument relied on the incorrect premise that "the offense" in § 3553(a) should be read as including the defendant’s supervised release violation. The Court affirmed the district court's revocation sentence. View "US v. Lewis" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit involving four defendants—Dricko Dashon Huskey, Renaire Roshique Lewis, Jr., Alandus Montrell Smith, and Jonathan Wray—all were members of the United Blood Nations (UBN) gang and were charged with conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act and related crimes. They were all found guilty following a trial. The defendants appealed their convictions and sentences, alleging various procedural and substantive errors. The Court of Appeals, after considering each of the defendants' arguments, affirmed the district court's judgments. The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions, and that the defendants' challenges to certain evidentiary rulings, closing arguments, jury instructions, and sentencing decisions lacked merit. View "US v. Huskey" on Justia Law

Angel Centeno-Morales, a federal prisoner with a long history of criminal offenses involving drugs and violence, filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) after his wife, who was the primary caregiver for their minor son, died of COVID-19. Centeno-Morales argued that his wife’s death constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for release and that a reassessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors also favored his release given his changed circumstances and his post-sentencing rehabilitative conduct. The district court agreed that the death of Centeno-Morales’ wife constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief, but found that the § 3553(a) factors strongly weighed in favor of his continued incarceration. Centeno-Morales appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Centeno-Morales' motion for compassionate release. The court found that the district court had properly evaluated the relevant § 3553(a) factors and provided sufficient reasoning for its decision. The court emphasized that Centeno-Morales had failed to meet his burden of persuasion to show that the § 3553(a) factors justified a modified sentence. The court further noted that the same judge who sentenced Centeno-Morales also ruled on his motion for compassionate release, which suggested the judge had a comprehensive understanding of Centeno-Morales' circumstances. View "US v. Centeno-Morales" on Justia Law

The defendant, Rodriquies Evans, was convicted of four criminal offenses related to his involvement in a multistate conspiracy to transport and distribute methamphetamine and other controlled substances. The district court sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 80 years in prison. The Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals found that the district court had erred in calculating Evans’s Sentencing Guidelines range and vacated his sentence, remanding the case for resentencing. The court determined that the district court had incorrectly attributed nearly three kilograms of crystal methamphetamine seized from a co-conspirator to Evans. The court held that for sentencing purposes under the Sentencing Guidelines, only acts that fall within the scope of the criminal activity the defendant agreed to jointly undertake can be considered relevant conduct. The district court had attributed the drugs based on the broader standard of substantive liability under Pinkerton, which allows a defendant to be held liable for the acts of co-conspirators if they are within the scope of the overall conspiracy and reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. The court also found that the district court had erred in applying a threat enhancement in calculating Evans's Sentencing Guidelines range, as the possession of a firearm enhancement could not by itself be the basis for a threat enhancement. View "US v. Evans" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Jahsir Claybrooks, pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen firearm. The probation office determined that at the time of the offense, Claybrooks was an unlawful user of controlled substances and under indictment for a felony, making him a "prohibited person" not allowed to possess a firearm. As a result, his sentence was calculated based on this status. Claybrooks challenged this designation, arguing that he was not an unlawful drug user and that the statute was unconstitutionally vague. He also asserted that the district court erred in determining he was under indictment at the time of his offense and in imposing a sentence above the recommended guidelines. Finally, Claybrooks argued that the district court should have conducted an analysis of the firearms statutes at issue in accordance with a recent Supreme Court case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the district court did not commit reversible error. The court found that the district court correctly determined that Claybrooks was an unlawful user of controlled substances at the time of the offense, the relevant statute was not unconstitutionally vague, and the district court did not err in imposing an above-guidelines sentence. The court also dismissed Claybrooks' argument regarding the need for an analysis of the firearms statutes, as he raised this issue for the first time on appeal. View "US v. Claybrooks" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a foreign service officer and a non-citizen were convicted of conspiring to fraudulently obtain U.S. citizenship for the non-citizen and making false statements in the process. The defendants, Laura Anne Gallagher and Andrey Nikolayevich Kalugin, were married in 2015. They were accused of conspiring to achieve naturalization and proof of citizenship for Kalugin by making false statements and submitting fraudulent documents. The jury found them guilty on all counts. On appeal, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support each defendant’s convictions. However, it found that the jury was allowed to consider a legally inadequate theory on one count and an erroneous evidentiary ruling prevented the defendants from offering certain evidence on the remaining two counts. As a result, the court vacated the convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "US v. Gallagher" on Justia Law