Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for drug conspiracy and related offenses. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence a state court record concerning defendant's 2013 state conviction, because it was intrinsic to the drug conspiracy and not subject to a Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) inquiry. The court rejected defendant's Napue claim, because he failed to show that the witness's testimony was false. View "United States v. Bush" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to distribute fifty grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant conspired to distribute the threshold drug quantity of fifty grams of methamphetamine.The court also held that, although the district court's jury instructions on the drug conspiracy offense constituted plain error, the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Finally, the court held that defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were not violated by the admission of business record certifications from Facebook, Google, and Time Warner Cable; the district court did not err by admitting the bad acts evidence relating to his prior threats and assaults; and defendant's remaining contentions of error were rejected. View "United States v. Denton" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for charges related to his operation of a prostitution ring. The court rejected defendant's numerous claims of error, holding that the trial court was within its discretion to deny the motion to continue; the district court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with the trial when defendant was absent for a single morning session of his week-long trial; even if the district court's denial of a motion to exclude the expert testimony of a software quality assurance engineer was error, the error was harmless; the district court did not clearly err in failing to inquire about whether defendant wanted to testify; although the district court erred by instructing the jury as to Count Seven, the court could not say that declining to correct the errors would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, nor would it result in a miscarriage of justice; and the district court was within its discretion to deny defendant's motion to withdraw as counsel. Finally, the court rejected defendant's four claims of sentencing errors. View "United States v. Muslim" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for sex trafficking and related crimes, holding that the warrantless forensic searches of defendant's digital devices did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.Where a search at the border is so intrusive as to require some level of individualized suspicion, the object of that suspicion must bear some nexus to the purposes of the border search exception in order for the exception to apply. The court agreed with defendant that the border search exception did not extend to the challenged searches, because no such nexus existed here. However, the court held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule barred suppression. In this case, law enforcement relied on an established and uniform body of precedent allowing warrantless border searches of digital devices at the time of the search. View "United States v. Aigbekaen" on Justia Law

All defendants who are serving sentences for violations of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(iii), and who are not excluded pursuant to the expressed limitations in Section 404(c) of the First Step Act, are eligible to move for relief under that Act. District courts then "may," at their discretion, "impose a reduced sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed."The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act. The court held that 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(B) is the appropriate vehicle for a First Step Act motion, and eligibility under the Act turns on the proper interpretation of a "covered offense." The court agreed with defendant and adopted his understanding that he is eligible to seek relief under the Act because, "before August 30, 2010," he "committed" a "violation" of 21 U.S.C. 841(a) and (b)(1)(B)(iii), and "the statutory penalties" for that statute "were modified by" Section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to consider defendant's motion. View "United States v. Wirsing" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment denying defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(B), as authorized by the First Step Act of 2018. The court held that the district court erred in determining that defendant was statutorily ineligible for a sentence reduction under the Act, because he had finished serving his original term of imprisonment and was currently serving a term of imprisonment for revocation of supervised release. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to consider defendant's motion in the first instance. View "United States v. Venable" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion challenging his sentence as no longer valid. The court held that defendant's predicate conviction for causing bodily injury to a witness under 18 U.S.C. 1513(b)(1) is categorically a violent Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) felony. In this case, defendant's conviction required knowing conduct that causes bodily injury to another, which categorically involved the use of violent force sufficient to bring it within the ACCA's elements clause. View "United States v. Allred" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress various ammunition and ammunition components seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant.The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. In this case, the warrant affidavit provided the magistrate with a substantial basis to conclude that defendant made terrorist threats within the meaning of W. Va. Code 61-6-24, and that evidence of this crime would be found in his home. The court also held that the alleged omissions in the warrant affidavit were immaterial to the magistrate's probable cause determination. In this case, defendant failed to demonstrate that the omitted statements were material to the magistrate's probable cause determination and thus the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a Franks hearing. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendants Taylor and Hersl, appealed their convictions and sentences for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy and substantive acts of RICO, as well as Hobbs Act robbery. Defendants' convictions stemmed from, among other things, their participation, while employed as police officers who were members of the Gun Trace Task Force (GTTF), in a conspiracy to rob citizens in the course of their police service.The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the record was sufficient to convict defendant of the charges; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' pretrial motion in limine to prohibit the government and its witnesses from using the term "robbery" during trial and by overruling their subsequent objection; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' motion for a mistrial after an outburst by a government witness and opting, instead, to strike the testimony and give the jury a curative instruction; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss the indictment; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for a new trial; the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant defendants a downward departure; and defendants' sentences were substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the firearm after he conditionally pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. The court rejected defendant's reliance on the agreement condition and held that the statutory search condition specifically provides that warrantless searches of supervisees may be undertaken by any post-release supervision officer.The court also held that, at bottom, the record supported the district court's determination that the warrantless search of defendant's apartment was not for the purpose of furthering general law enforcement goals. Rather, the officers conducted the search to ensure defendant's continued compliance with the terms of his supervision agreement. Finally, because the search of defendant's apartment complied with the statutory condition, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law