Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion in this criminal proceeding stemming from murders committed four decades ago. The court rejected petitioner's prosecutorial misconduct claim based on the discovered evidence of a former Deputy U.S. Marshal that a threat from a prosecutor stopped another individual from confessing on the witness stand during petitioner's trial. The court also rejected petitioner's freestanding actual innocence claim premised on DNA testing. The court held that petitioner failed to overcome the procedural bar of section 2255(h)(1), because neither claim was based on newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found petitioner guilty of murdering his wife and daughters.In the alternative, the court held that the prosecutorial misconduct claim failed on the merits where the factual findings were well-supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous. Furthermore, petitioner failed to meet his extraordinarily high burden of showing actual innocence. View "United States v. MacDonald" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's pretrial order denying his motion to release seized assets. The court held that there was probable cause to find that defendant used fraudulently obtained and laundered funds to make mortgage payments and property tax payments associated with his Virginia property, and that defendant used funds to pay for improvements to both of his properties. Therefore, the court held that there was probable cause to find that the properties were involved in and traceable to defendant's wire fraud and money laundering charges and were thus forfeitable. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal as untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b). In the alternative, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating only defendant's conviction and sentence on the 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) count and not ordering a resentencing on defendant's carjacking conviction.In this case, after the Fourth Circuit issued its decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), defendant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255, challenging his section 922(g)(1) conviction and sentence, as well as his carjacking sentence. The government agreed that defendant was actually innocent of the section 922(g)(1) conviction because he was not a felon at the time. The government thus waived its defenses on the waiver of defendant's plea agreement and the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. 2253(f) in order to allow vacatur of defendant's sentence. The district court subsequently granted defendant partial relief, vacating the section 922(g)(1) conviction and sentence but declining to resentence him on the other two counts. View "United States v. Chaney" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for numerous offenses related to his alleged distribution of controlled substances. The court held that the district court reversibly erred in refusing to suppress inculpatory statements defendant made during a custodial interrogation; the district court erred in failing to conduct an in camera review of confidential law enforcement records requested by defendant when he established the confidential records plausibly contained materially favorable information; and therefore the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Abdallah" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers obtained a warrant to search defendant's home after they found three marijuana stems in a trash pull. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in his home, holding that the trash pull evidence did not adequately support the warrant to search defendant's home for marijuana possession. The court explained that the affidavit did not provide a substantial basis for the magistrate to find probable cause to search the home for evidence of marijuana possession, and the warrant provided search and seizure authority wholly disconnected from marijuana possession. The court declined to apply the Leon good faith standard. View "United States v. Lyles" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his motion to compel the BOP to comply with the Fourth Circuit's mandate in Mangum v. Hallembaek, 824 F.3d 98 (4th Cir. 2016). Specifically, petitioner challenged the BOP's refusal to designate nunc pro tunc a state facility for service of his federal sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3621(b). On remand, the BOP again denied petitioner's request.The court reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to compel compliance and remanded again. The court held that the BOP failed to comply with the court's mandate when it denied petitioner's request for nunc pro tunc designation a second time. View "Mangum v. Hallembaek" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's determination that petitioner was removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) based on his commission of a crime involving moral turpitude within five years of his admission to the United States. The court explained that it was DHS's burden to affirmatively prove (by clear and convincing evidence) that petitioner last entered in 2000 without inspection, and was therefore not admitted until 2008, because this determined whether his 2012 felony abduction offense fell within the five-year window for removability. The court held that DHS failed to prove that petitioner was admitted in 2008. In this case, the record contained essentially unrebutted evidence showing that petitioner was in Peru from 1999 to 2001, and that he presented himself for inspection and was allowed to enter the United States at Reagan National Airport in 2002 (whether on a visa or otherwise). View "Mauricio-Vasquez v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

In 2004, after pleading guilty to selling crack cocaine to a government informant, Lester was sentenced to almost 22 years in prison because he was designated a career offender under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. This enhancement depended on a past conviction for a “crime of violence,” Lester’s 1990 Georgia conviction for walkaway escape. In 2005, the Supreme Court stripped the Sentencing Guidelines of legal force and made them purely advisory; in 2009, the Court ruled that the generic crime of failing to report to a prison was not a crime of violence. Lester’s sentence should have been up to 11 years shorter. Lester sought habeas corpus relief. The district court denied his petition. The Fourth Circuit vacated, noting that its 2018 decision in United States v. Wheeler permits Lester’s challenge although Lester had already filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255. In limited circumstances, courts, including the Fourth Circuit, allow a prisoner otherwise unable to file a second or successive section 2255 petition to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241. A sentencing error “need not result in a sentence that exceeds statutory limits in order to be a fundamental defect.” Lester’s case must be considered on the merits. View "Lester v. Flournoy" on Justia Law

MDENT, a Charleston drug task force, investigated Terry after an officer found remnants of drugs in trash outside of a residence associated with Terry. An MDENT agent acquired a search warrant for Terry’s residence. Agents followed Terry to a store. Once Terry had parked, Corporal Johnson approached the car and smelled marijuana. Terry turned over a small amount of marijuana. Johnson searched the car. Nothing more was found. Meanwhile, another MDENT agent surreptitiously placed a GPS tracker onto the car. No contraband or incriminating evidence was found in the residence. Afterwards, Johnson obtained a warrant to “ping” Terry’s cell phone and to place a GPS tracker on the car. Two days later, agents relied solely on the GPS data to track the car to Ohio, where they suspected Terry obtained drugs. After the car returned, the officers followed it and determined that it was speeding at five miles above the posted speed limit of 45 MPH. Officers pulled the car over. Tamara, the car’s owner, was driving. Terry was a passenger. Johnson wrote Tamara a warning citation while another officer spoke with Terry and informed Johnson that he smelled marijuana, Johnson ordered Terry out of the car and performed a pat-down. Officers discovered 195.5 grams of methamphetamine and 2.9 grams of marijuana. Although the district court found that MDENT’s conduct constituted a flagrant constitutional violation, it denied Terry’s motion to suppress on the basis of standing. The Fourth Circuit vacated. Terry had standing and the discovery of the evidence seized during the traffic stop was not sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful GPS search to purge the taint. View "United States v. Terry" on Justia Law

A Newport News police officer pulled over Brown’s car for a traffic violation; he smelled alcohol and observed that Brown had slurred speech. A preliminary breath test measured a blood alcohol content of approximately 0.23, over the legal limit for driving in Virginia. Officers informed Brown that he was under arrest and instructed him to put his hands behind his back. Brown attempted to flee. Officers pursued him on foot, seized and handcuffed him, then recovered a firearm that had fallen from Brown’s pants leg. Officers searched the vehicle and recovered bags containing 3.59 grams of cocaine. Brown pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). A PSR gave Brown three criminal history points for a 2008 state conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and added two points under USSG 4A1.1(d) because Brown committed the instant offense while “under a criminal justice sentence.” Brown was sentenced to 10 years’ incarceration for the 2008 conviction, with eight years and nine months suspended, conditioned on good behavior for 10 years upon release. The PSR calculated a guidelines range of 57-71 months. The Fourth Circuit affirmed a 60-month sentence, agreeing that a period of good behavior qualifies as being under a criminal justice sentence. Although Brown wasn’t under active supervision, he was subject to the authority of the state court, which could revoke the suspended sentence if Brown violated the condition. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law