Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's 70-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant argued that his prior North Carolina conviction did not qualify as a conviction for a crime of violence and that the district court erred in so concluding. The court held that any error that the district court might have committed in treating defendant's North Carolina conviction as a crime-of-violence predicate was harmless because the district court would have imposed the same 70-month sentence regardless of how it resolved the disputed Guidelines issue and the 70-month sentence would, in the circumstances, have been reasonable. View "United States v. Mills" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and his mandatory minimum 15 year sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The Fourth Circuit affirmed in light of United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2009), which imposed an extreme burden on a defendant seeking plain error review of a court's failure to provide correct sentencing information before accepting a guilty plea. The court held that defendant failed to demonstrate plain error affecting his substantial rights. In this case, defendant did not make any statement on the record indicating that he would have proceeded to trial if he had been given the correct sentencing information. Nor did he express surprise at the statement in the PSR of a potential ACCA designation or seek to withdraw his plea on that basis. Finally, the government proffered strong evidence supporting the felon in possession charge. View "United States v. Lockhart" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the validity of his guilty plea for aggravated identity theft, and various aspects of sentencing for possession of at least fifteen access devices with intent to defraud and possession of device-making equipment with intent to defraud. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that defendant never objected to purported errors in the Rule 11 proceeding, and his challenges on appeal were insubstantial and did not come close to meeting a plain error standard. The court also held that the district court did not err in calculating the amount of loss; even if there was error in calculating the amount of loss, it was harmless; the district court did not err in concluding that the eighteen persons identified were victims; and the district court did not clearly err by denying defendant an acceptance of responsibility reduction under USSG 3E1.1(a). View "United States v. Carver" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of defendants' motions for sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Although there is no right to a sentence reduction under section 582(c)(2), a district court cannot ignore a host of mitigation evidence and summarily deny a motion to reduce a sentence and leave both the defendant and the appellate court in the dark as to the reasons for its decision. In this case, the court held that the district court failed to provide defendants with individualized explanations for its rulings on their respective motions. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to commit drug trafficking, conspiracy to use firearms while drug trafficking, attempted possession of heroin with intent to distribute, using or carrying a firearm while drug trafficking, and three counts of federal programs bribery. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conspiracy, attempted possession and firearms convictions, but vacated the federal programs bribery convictions. The court held that the government failed to produce evidence from which a jury could find that defendant's services to the drug trafficking organization had a value of $5,000 or more. Because defendant's sentence could not be affected by the vacation of his federal programs bribery convictions, the court need not remand for resentencing. View "United States v. Tillmon" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Young of attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a designated foreign terrorist organization, 18 U.S.C. 2339B, and two counts of attempting to obstruct justice, 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the material support conviction, vacated the obstruction convictions, and remanded for resentencing. The court upheld the district court’s admission of the Nazi and white supremacist paraphernalia found during a search of Young’s home; the rejection of an entrapment defense; various evidentiary rulings; and the certification of an expert witness on militant Islamist and Nazi “convergence.” The evidence was insufficient to prove the nexus and foreseeability requirements of the obstruction statute; the government was required to prove Young “corruptly” attempted to “obstruct[], influence[], or impede[]” “an official proceeding. In neither specified situation in which Young made statements to the FBI or to others was Young’s conduct connected to a specific official proceeding, nor was such a specific official proceeding reasonably foreseeable to Young. View "United States v. Young" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Appellant’s conviction of production of child pornography, holding that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained through a military warrant and that evidence subsequently obtained through a federal warrant supported by the military warrant evidence is likewise admissible.Appellant, a member of the United States Navy, was accused of sexual assault and suspected of possession of child pornography. Investigators with the Naval Criminal Investigation Service obtained a military warrant to search Appellant’s cell phone for evidence of sexual assault. During the search, the investigators found child pornography. The investigators then obtained a federal warrant to search Appellant’s phone a second time and again found child pornography. Appellant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the two searches of the phone, arguing that the Military Rules of Evidence applied in his case and required suppression. The district court denied the motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Fourth Amendment governs whether evidence is admissible in federal criminal proceedings, and the Military Rules of Evidence cannot supplant the Fourth Amendment; and (2) even assuming the initial warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, the good faith exception saved the evidence obtained from both searches. View "United States v. Seerden" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of eight counts related to sex trafficking and child pornography. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court should have suppressed the evidence from defendant's cellphone, and the error was not harmless because the remaining evidence did not satisfy the elements of the two child pornography counts. The court held, however, that the district court did not err in admitting the hearsay statements. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's conviction as to the two child pornography counts and affirmed the other six counts, vacated defendant's sentence, and remanded to the district court. View "United States v. Pratt" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that defendant was a sexually dangerous person within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 4247(a)(5). The court held that the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 did not require a diagnosis with a paraphilic disorder, and the appellate record supported the district court's conclusion. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err when it found that the government established the criteria for commitment by clear and convincing evidence and ordered defendant committed to the custody of the United States Attorney General. View "United States v. Charboneau" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for armed bank robbery and related crimes following a successful petition vacating his original sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Defendant argued that he received no benefit from the plea agreement because his previous conviction for a New York robbery offense did not count as his third strike. The court held, however, that the text and structure of 18 U.S.C. 3559(c) showed a congressional intent to encompass state laws such as the New York robbery offense in this case, which shared the essential characteristics of the enumerated robbery offenses under federal law. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law