Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Vera and Trecika Dunlap, a mother and daughter who pleaded guilty to jury tampering. The Dunlaps had followed a juror from a separate criminal trial involving their family members and offered him money in exchange for a not-guilty vote. They entered into plea agreements under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), agreeing to serve twelve months and one day of incarceration. However, they argue that the district court accepted the plea agreements but then imposed a higher sentence than that stipulated in the plea agreements.The district court, which had presided over the trial during which the jury tampering occurred, expressed hesitation about imposing the stipulated sentence due to the seriousness of the offense. The court determined that it would reject the plea agreement provision that required a sentence of a year and a day, believing it was not a sufficient sentence for the offense under the circumstances. The court then informed the Dunlaps that they had the right to withdraw their plea and calculated the applicable guidelines range to be 46 to 57 months. The court eventually sentenced each of the Dunlaps to 36 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that when the record is ambiguous as to whether a district court accepted or rejected a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, such ambiguity must be construed in the defendant’s favor. The court concluded that the record in this case was ambiguous and thus construed it in the manner urged by the Dunlaps. Accordingly, the court deemed the district court to have accepted (and been bound by) the terms of the plea agreements between the Dunlaps and the government. The court vacated the judgments and remanded the case with instructions to reenter the judgments consistent with the terms of the plea agreements and this opinion. View "United States v. Dunlap" on Justia Law

The case involves Earl Johnson, a former inmate of the Maryland Correctional Training Center, who alleged that corrections officer Chad Zimmerman sexually harassed and abused him during strip searches, in violation of his Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights. Johnson also sued Zimmerman’s supervisor, Lt. Richard Robinette, alleging supervisory and bystander liability. The district court dismissed Johnson’s claims against Robinette due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies but held that Johnson’s claims against Zimmerman were exempt from this requirement. The court also granted summary judgment to Zimmerman and Robinette on the merits of Johnson’s claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding that Johnson’s claims against Robinette were subject to exhaustion requirements. However, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to both defendants. The court found that the strip searches, including those involving momentary touchings of Johnson’s genitalia or buttocks, did not rise to the level of an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The court also found that Johnson failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Zimmerman had the requisite malicious intent to sexually abuse him, sexually arouse him or himself, or otherwise gratify sexual desire. Furthermore, the court found that Johnson’s evidence fell short of establishing supervisory or bystander liability against Robinette. View "Johnson v. Robinette" on Justia Law

Marcus Antonio Ashford pleaded guilty to two counts of drug-related crimes. As part of his plea agreement, he voluntarily and knowingly waived his right to contest either the conviction or the sentence in any direct appeal, with the exception of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. At Ashford's sentencing hearing, the court sentenced him to 168 months' imprisonment and eight years of supervised release. After the sentence was imposed, Ashford's counsel indicated that Ashford wished to address the court. The court allowed Ashford to speak but did not alter the sentence. Ashford subsequently appealed, arguing that the court's failure to allow him to speak before the sentence was imposed constituted reversible error.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina had sentenced Ashford without first giving him the opportunity to allocute. Ashford's appeal was based on the contention that this omission constituted reversible error and he asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that Ashford's allocution challenge was barred by the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. The court dismissed the appeal as to that issue and any other issues falling under the appellate waiver, and affirmed as to all other issues. The court held that the Government had properly asserted the appeal waiver in its supplemental response brief, and that it was not required to raise the waiver in response to Ashford's pro se brief. The court also found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Ashford's valid appeal waiver. View "US v. Ashford" on Justia Law

Five members of the Baltimore-based gang, Murdaland Mafia Piru (MMP), appealed their convictions and sentences. The defendants were convicted of various crimes, including conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, and possession of a firearm and ammunition as convicted felons. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed most of the convictions and sentences, but reversed two convictions for Shakeen Davis due to a violation of Rehaif v. United States, which requires the government to prove that a defendant knew he was a felon at the time he possessed a firearm. The court remanded the case for entry of a corrected judgment. The court rejected the other defendants' arguments, including claims of evidentiary errors, failure to enforce a plea agreement, and challenges to the reasonableness of their sentences. View "US v. Banks" on Justia Law

The case involves El Shafee Elsheikh, a former citizen of the United Kingdom who joined the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) in 2012. Along with others, Elsheikh captured and held hostage several foreign nationals, including United States and United Kingdom citizens. Some hostages were released, while others were executed, with their deaths featured in ISIS propaganda materials. The hostages referred to their captors as "the Beatles" due to their British accents. Elsheikh was captured in 2018 by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) while attempting to flee Syria.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Elsheikh was indicted on eight counts, including conspiracy to commit hostage taking, resulting in death, hostage taking resulting in death, conspiracy to murder United States citizens outside of the United States, and conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a designated terrorist organization (ISIS), resulting in death. Elsheikh was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to eight terms of life imprisonment.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Elsheikh appealed his convictions, challenging the admissibility of certain evidence against him at trial. The court affirmed Elsheikh’s convictions and sentences, finding no reversible errors occurred during the trial. The court concluded that Elsheikh received a fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution and laws. View "United States v. El Elsheikh" on Justia Law

The defendant, Zavien Lenoy Canada, was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), commonly known as the "felon-in-possession" offense. On appeal, Canada made two arguments: (1) that Section 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional, and (2) that the district court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina had previously convicted Canada and imposed an enhanced sentence under the ACCA. The district court identified three previous convictions, one of which was for criminal domestic violence under South Carolina law, as the basis for the enhanced sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Canada's assertion that Section 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional. The court stated that the law has a "plainly legitimate sweep" and can be constitutionally applied in some circumstances. However, the court agreed with Canada's second argument, ruling that the district court erred in sentencing Canada under the ACCA. The court noted that one of the three convictions identified by the district court, criminal domestic violence, does not constitute a violent felony under the ACCA according to recent decisions. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for resentencing. View "US v. Canada" on Justia Law

The case involves Robert James McCabe, a former sheriff of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, who was convicted of carrying out fraud and bribery schemes with contractors concerning medical and food services for prisoners in the Norfolk Jail. Over 20 years, McCabe provided favored contractors with inside information about competing bids for the Jail’s contracts, altered and extended contracts for their benefit, and received various things of substantial value in return. McCabe was convicted of 11 federal offenses, including charges of conspiracy, honest services mail fraud, Hobbs Act extortion, and money laundering. He was sentenced to 144 months in prison, plus supervised release.McCabe appealed his convictions and sentences, raising four contentions of error. He argued that his trial was unfairly conducted before a trial of a co-defendant, that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements, that the jury instructions were incorrect, and that the court wrongly applied an 18-level sentencing enhancement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected all of McCabe’s contentions and affirmed his convictions and sentences. View "US v. McCabe" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal by Caron Nazario, an Army officer, against a judgment following a jury trial in the Eastern District of Virginia. Nazario claimed he was mistreated by police officers Joe Gutierrez and Daniel Crocker during a traffic stop. The district court ruled that the officers had probable cause to arrest Nazario for three Virginia misdemeanor offenses, which Nazario contends was an error. This error, according to Nazario, resulted in the court incorrectly awarding the officers qualified immunity on three of his constitutional claims and improperly instructing the jury on probable cause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed most of the judgment but reversed the court’s award of qualified immunity to defendant Gutierrez on Nazario’s Fourth Amendment claim for an unreasonable seizure. The court found that the officers had probable cause for a traffic infraction and a misdemeanor obstruction of justice, but not for the misdemeanor offenses of “eluding” or “failure to obey a conservator of the peace.” The court also ruled that Gutierrez's death threats against Nazario were a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, and thus, he was not entitled to qualified immunity on the unreasonable seizure claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Nazario v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Patrick Sutherland was convicted of three counts of filing false tax returns and one count of obstructing an official proceeding. He managed several insurance businesses and routed his international transactions through a Bermuda company, Stewart Technology Services (STS), which he claimed was owned and controlled by his sister. However, evidence showed that Sutherland managed all its day-to-day affairs. Between 2007 and 2011, STS sent Sutherland, his wife, or companies that he owned more than $2.1 million in wire transfers. Sutherland treated these transfers as loans or capital contributions, which are not taxable income, while STS treated them as expenses paid to Sutherland. Sutherland did not report the $2.1 million as income on his tax returns. In 2015, a federal grand jury indicted Sutherland for filing false returns and for obstructing the 2012 grand jury investigation. The jury found Sutherland guilty on all charges.Sutherland appealed his convictions, but the Court of Appeals affirmed them. He then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition to vacate his obstruction conviction and a petition for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate his tax fraud convictions. The district court denied both petitions without holding an evidentiary hearing. Sutherland appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Sutherland failed to show how the proffered testimony from his brother and a tax expert would have undermined his obstruction conviction. The court also found that Sutherland had not demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel and thus could not show an error of the most fundamental character warranting coram nobis relief. View "United States v. Sutherland" on Justia Law

The case involves Daniel Lamont Mathis, who was convicted of multiple offenses, including Hobbs Act robbery, racketeering, and violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity, all in connection with the carjacking, kidnapping, and execution-style murder of a Virginia police officer. Initially, Mathis was sentenced to four concurrent life sentences and a consecutively imposed term of 132 years’ imprisonment. However, after an appeal and the passage of the First Step Act of 2018, which amended the sentencing structure for second or subsequent convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the district court resentenced Mathis to four concurrent life sentences, plus 48 years’ imprisonment.The district court also set forth mandatory and discretionary conditions of supervised release. One of the discretionary conditions was that Mathis would be subject to warrantless search and seizure to ensure compliance with these conditions. However, the written judgment included additional language, stating that Mathis must warn any other occupants that the premises may be subject to searches pursuant to this condition.Mathis appealed, arguing that the additional language in the written judgment constituted error under United States v. Rogers and United States v. Singletary. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with Mathis, finding that the requirement to warn other occupants was inconsistent with the orally pronounced condition. The court held that this discrepancy constituted reversible error under Rogers and Singletary. As a result, the court vacated Mathis' sentence and remanded the case for a full resentencing. View "US v. Mathis" on Justia Law