Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment allowing defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and dismissing the aggravated identity theft count.The court held that 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1) prohibits the unauthorized use of the means of identification of deceased, as well as living, victims. In light of its plain, ordinary meaning and the statutory context, the court held that the term "person" is unambiguous and includes deceased persons as victims of identity theft. Furthermore, the legislative history bolsters the court's interpretation of the term. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. George" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the state's motion for summary judgment and rejected petitioner's claim that a state post-conviction court unreasonably applied Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), when evaluating evidence disclosed to him for the first time thirty years after his trial. The court held that, although petitioner showed that the state court's summary conclusion misstated the burden of proof for Brady claims, that error did not entitle petitioner to habeas relief. In this case, the state court found the cumulative effect of any new evidence with any value was so minimal that it would have no impact on the outcome of the trial. The court held that the state court's reasonable finding supported the state court's decision that any newly disclosed evidence fell short of the kind of materiality that Brady required. View "Long v. Hooks" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to 51 months in prison. The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction, holding that the district court's failure to give a limiting instruction sua sponte and its decision to permit the government to cross-examine defendant did not constitute plain error.However, the court vacated defendant's sentence, holding that defendant's prior conviction for robbery under Maryland law was a violent felony under the force clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The court also held that Maryland possession with intent to distribute constitutes a controlled substance offense under the sentencing guidelines. Because the district court erred in holding otherwise, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. Petitioner alleged due process violations stemming from a prison disciplinary proceeding that resulted in the revocation of twenty days of his good-time credits.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of petitioner's claim regarding the DHO's failure to review the requested surveillance video during his hearing, because there was no clearly established violation of petitioner's right at the time. Therefore, the North Carolina Supreme Court did not act unreasonably in denying petitioner's claim. However, the court vacated the district court's determination that petitioner's conviction was supported by "some evidence" in the record. The court held that this case presented the exceedingly rare circumstance where the record contained no probative evidence to support petitioner's conviction. Therefore, petitioner's disciplinary conviction amounted to a violation of his due process rights. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to grant habeas relief as to the good-time credits. View "Tyler v. Hooks" on Justia Law

Defendants Peterson and Bun appealed their convictions for crimes related to their involvement in a methamphetamine distribution ring in prison. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the indictment without prejudice, having carefully weighed the relevant set of non-exclusive factors set out in the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA). The court explained that, by affording district courts substantial discretion over this determination, Congress sought to ensure that violations of the IADA's anti-shuttling provision would not needlessly encumber federal prosecutions. Therefore, the court rejected defendants' claim that the district court should have dismissed their initial indictment with prejudice because they were improperly transferred from federal to state custody.The court joined every federal court to address the question and held that a superseding indictment filed 30 days after an arrest does not violate 18 U.S.C. 3161(b) so long as the original indictment was filed within the Speedy Trial Act's 30-day window. The court found defendants' remaining claims regarding their speedy trial rights and claims of evidentiary error were without merit. View "United States v. Peterson" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit granted the government's motion to dismiss defendant's appeal after he pleaded guilty to identity theft and fraud. The court held that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)'s deadline was a mandatory claim-processing rule that must be strictly applied and thus the district court's error in failing to advise defendant of his right to appeal could not excuse defendant's untimely filing and equitable doctrines were unavailable to extend the deadline. The court noted, however, that its conclusion did not render Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(j) a nullity. Rather, defendant may seek to remedy the district court's error in a collateral proceeding. View "United States v. Marsh" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for carjacking, conspiracy to commit carjacking, and destruction of government property. The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the carjacking and conspiracy charges, because there was sufficient evidence to support the charges; motion to suppress evidence related to a cell phone search, because the district court's inference that defendant abandoned his phone while fleeing was reasonable; and motion to excuse and question two jurors, because defendant failed to show that the extrajudicial communications or contacts at issue were more than innocuous interventions. View "United States v. Small" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm by a felony, holding that the district court did not err by denying his motion to suppress. The court held that the evidence presented to the district court supported a finding that the firearm inevitably would have been discovered during an inventory search of the plastic bag. The court declined to address the government's alternative argument that the firearm was discovered during a valid search incident to arrest. View "United States v. Seay" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of assault resulting in bodily injury to a victim under 16 years of age. The court held that defendant's sentence of five years probation and 200 hours of community service was procedurally unreasonable, because the district court failed to provide an explanation in support of its sentence sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Provance" on Justia Law

A conviction under South Carolina's voyeurism statute constitutes a sex offense requiring registration under the Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORNA). The Fourth Circuit declined to apply the section 2246 definitions of "sexual act" and "sexual contact" outside of their place in Title 18 Chapter 109A, in the absence of statutory language to do so. Rather, the court chose to define SORNA's use of these terms in accordance with their ordinary meaning. Consequently, the court explained that a violation of the voyeurism statute—which does not require physical contact, but does require the voyeuristic act to be in furtherance of "arousing or gratifying sexual desire"—is a criminal offense involving a "sexual act" or "sexual contact" that requires registration under SORNA. Accordingly, the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss was proper and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Helton" on Justia Law