Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Allen pleaded guilty to the unlawful possession of firearms by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). His PSR reported that, in 2009, Allen was convicted of using a communication facility to facilitate the crime of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 843(b), and, in 2007, Allen was convicted of two North Carolina misdemeanors--possession of marijuana in an amount less than or equal to one-half ounce, and second-degree trespass. Those misdemeanor convictions were consolidated into one judgment for sentencing. The district court increased Allen’s base offense level under USSG 2K2.1(a)(2), based on his two prior felony convictions of “controlled substance offenses,” including his Section 843(b) conviction; added one point to Allen's criminal history score under USSG 4A1.1(c) based on the North Carolina consolidated judgment; determined that Allen’s Guidelines range was 84-105 months, varied downward, and imposed a sentence of 77 months’ imprisonment. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Section 843(b) commentary states that a Section 843(b) conviction is a “controlled substance offense” if the “underlying offense” is a “controlled substance offense.” Allen’s 2009 judgment shows that he used a communication facility to facilitate the underlying offense of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, which is a “controlled substance offense.” The district court properly added one criminal history point for the North Carolina consolidated judgment. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law

Lawlor worked at a Fairfax County apartment complex and had access to keys to each apartment. On September 24, 2008, Lawlor consumed alcohol and a large amount of crack cocaine and sexually assaulted, bludgeoned, and killed a tenant in that complex, Genevieve Orange. A Virginia state court sentenced Lawlor to death; the sentencing jury found that there was a probability Lawlor “would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing serious threat to society,” Va. Code 19.2–264.4.C. Lawlor exhausted state court direct appeal and post-conviction remedies then sought review of his death sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court dismissed his petition. The Fourth Circuit reversed. The state court excluded specialized and relevant testimony of a qualified witness who would have explained that Lawlor “represents a very low risk for committing acts of violence while incarcerated,” where the jury’s only choices were life in prison without parole or death. That ruling was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent that “evidence that the defendant would not pose a danger if spared (but incarcerated) must be considered potentially mitigating,” and “such evidence may not be excluded from the sentencer’s consideration.” The error had a substantial and injurious effect. View "Lawlor v. Zook" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Defendants Zelaya, Ordonez-Vega, Sosa, and Gavidia's convictions of participating in a racketeering conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); Zelaya, Ordonez-Vega, and Sosa's conviction of committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering (VICAR) and using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence; and Gavidia's sentence.The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendants' motions for acquittal under Rule 29; the district court correctly defined the "purpose" element in its jury instructions regarding the VICAR offense; there was no error in the admission of testimony from two New York police officers; the district court did not err by refusing to sever Sosa and Gavidia's trials from the trials of Zelaya and Ordonez-Vega; Sosa and Gavidia were not entitled to mistrials; and Gavidia's sentence was substantively and procedurally reasonable. View "United States v. Zelaya" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's resentence for time served, followed by two years of supervised release to expire in April 2019. The court held that the case was not moot where defendant received a unitary sentence and a challenge to that sentence presented a live controversy, even though he has served the custodial portion of the sentence. The court held that, although the district court procedurally erred by imposing a time-served sentence that amounted to an unexplained variance from the Sentencing Guidelines, the error was harmless. View "United States v. Ketter" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of child pornography from a cell phone. The court held that, while the warrant affidavit alone did not establish probable cause, the evidence was admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule articulated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Under the circumstances, the officer had a reasonable basis to believe that there was probable cause to search the phone. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for several firearm and drug related offenses. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request to interview jurors, because juror interviews were unlikely to reveal evidence that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in the jury's vote to convict. The court also rejected defendant's claims of evidentiary error regarding the testimony of a detective and evidence of prior bad acts, and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony and evidence. View "United States v. Birchette" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence of criminal conspiracy for his involvement in a scheme to acquire and resell luxury vehicles using stolen identities. The court held that the district court's supplemental jury instruction did not constitute a constructive amendment in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In this case, the district court's instruction neither altered an element of the conspiracy charged by defendant's indictment nor prejudiced the defense. The court also held that the supplemental instruction did not violate defendant's right to a trial by an impartial jury. Finally, the court found no error in the district court's loss calculation and the evidence fully supported the district court's application of a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(4) for being in the business of receiving and selling stolen property. View "United States v. Camara" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine based and possession of a firearm, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made to officers during the execution of a search warrant for his residence; (2) did not abuse its discretion in admitting “other acts” evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); (3) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant who provided information used to obtain the search warrant; and (4) did not err in enhancing Defendant’s sentence on the basis of his prior Maryland convictions. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit reversed the decision of the district court denying Appellant’s motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, holding that Appellant’s ACCA-enhanced sentence was unlawful where the sentencing court relied on three ACCA predicate convictions and one of those predicates was no longer valid.Appellant received a mandatory sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on three prior convictions. Appellant filed this motion to vacate his sentence arguing that one of his ACCA predicate convictions no longer qualified as an ACCA predicate in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Assuming without deciding that the offense no longer qualified as an ACCA predicate, the district court found that another conviction listed in Appellant’s presentence investigation report but never designated as an ACCA predicate could replace the now-invalid predicate. The Fourth Circuit disagreed and remanded for resentencing, holding that the government may not use a conviction never before designated as an ACCA predicate to support an ACCA sentence enhancement on collateral review. View "United States v. Hodge" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Appellant’s sentence of forty-nine months entered after he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to commit access-device fraud and aggravated identity theft, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on any of his arguments on appeal.During the proceedings below, the government determined that Appellant had not fulfilled his obligation under the plea agreement to testify truthfully. The government then exercised its right under the agreement to refuse to move for a substantial-assistance sentence reduction. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred by permitting the government to decline to move for a substantial-assistance reduction without requiring it to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant had breached his obligations under the plea agreement. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the plea agreement was not ambiguous; and (2) Appellant’s approach requiring the government to declare Appellant in breach of the plea agreement was not supported by any language in the agreement or any principle of contract law. View "United States v. Under Seal" on Justia Law