Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants, members of the MS-13 gang, were convicted of a wide variety of crimes in aid of racketeering. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the government did not violate its Brady and Napue duties; the government did not engage in a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct; Defendant Cerna was not entitled to a new trial where the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give instructions as to lesser included offenses and in giving the purpose instruction; the court rejected Cerna's evidentiary challenges; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying severance motions; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant Guevara's statutory right to two lawyers; there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant Chavez's conviction and his suppression claim was rejected; and Guevara and Cerna's sentences did not violate the Eighth Amendment. View "United States v. Chavez" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant was convicted of money laundering and other crimes that related to a fraudulent investment scheme. In this case, defendant's counsel failed to raise a significant and obvious merger issue that, if raised, likely would have resulted in the reversal of defendant's money laundering convictions. The court held that merger constituted a "clearly stronger" argument than the issues raised on direct appeal, and because appellate counsel did not identify any true strategic rationale for failing to raise merger, counsel's performance was deficient. Furthermore, the deficient performance caused defendant prejudice. Accordingly, defendant established ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Allmendinger" on Justia Law

During seven weeks in 2002, Malvo (then 17 years old) and Muhammad, the “D.C. Snipers,” murdered 12 individuals, inflicted grievous injuries on six others, and terrorized the area with a shooting spree. The two were apprehended while sleeping in a car. A loaded rifle was found in the car; a hole had been “cut into the lid of the trunk, just above the license plate, through which a rifle barrel could be projected.” At the time, a Virginia defendant convicted of capital murder, who was at least 16 years old at the time of his crime, would be punished by either death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. A jury convicted Malvo of two counts of capital murder but declined to recommend the death penalty. He was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment without parole. Malvo later pleaded guilty in another Virginia jurisdiction to capital murder and attempted capital murder and received two additional terms of life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court subsequently held that defendants who committed crimes when under the age of 18 cannot be sentenced to death; cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole unless they committed a homicide that reflected their permanent incorrigibility; and that these rules were to be applied retroactively. The Fourth Circuit concluded that Malvo’s sentences must be vacated because the retroactive constitutional rules for sentencing juveniles were not satisfied. The court remanded for resentencing to determine whether Malvo qualifies as a rare juvenile offender who may, consistent with the Eighth Amendment, be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole because his “crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility” or whether those crimes instead “reflect the transient immaturity of youth,” so that he must receive a lesser sentence. View "Malvo v. Mathena" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying defendant's motion to suppress after he conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that officers had reasonable suspicion of ongoing criminal activity when they seized defendant. In this case, officers were entitled to rely on the information provided by the first caller as noted in the call for service report: that a white male wearing a blue-and-white striped shirt was at RJ's, carrying a concealed weapon, and drinking. Furthermore, the officers corroborated several key facts from the first caller's tip before seizing defendant. Finally, the district court's racial remarks did not prejudice defendant. View "United States v. Kehoe" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after she pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, eight substantive counts of wire fraud and aiding and abetting, and four substantive counts of money laundering and aiding and abetting. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in applying the vulnerable victim sentencing enhancement, and by calculating the actual loss amount used to justify an eighteen level enhancement. View "United States v. Shephard" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal based on petitioner's prior convictions for theft. The court held that the Maryland theft statute was not divisible and the modified categorical approach was inapplicable in this case, and not all of the offenses encompassed under the relevant Maryland statute qualified as crimes involving moral turpitude. Accordingly, the court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded for consideration of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. View "Leyva Martinez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated defendant's 308 month resentence after a successful 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court agreed with defendant that the district court improperly designated him as a career offender under the 2016 United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual, and that this incorrect designation led to the further error of applying the wrong version of the Guidelines Manual to determine his Guidelines range. Therefore, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Fluker" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment rejecting defendant's attempt to contest the validity of his underlying sentence. Defendant was placed on supervision after serving a fifteen-year prison sentence for a federal firearm conviction and violated the terms of his supervised release within three months. The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction in revocation proceedings to consider the validity of an underlying sentence, and the new term of supervised release was in no way "plainly unreasonable" pursuant to United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). View "United States v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment rejecting defendant's attempt to contest the validity of his underlying sentence. Defendant was placed on supervision after serving a fifteen-year prison sentence for a federal firearm conviction and violated the terms of his supervised release within three months. The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction in revocation proceedings to consider the validity of an underlying sentence, and the new term of supervised release was in no way "plainly unreasonable" pursuant to United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). View "United States v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to multiple counts of sexual exploitation of a child and one count of receipt and distribution of child pornography. The Fourth Circuit dismissed defendant's challenge to the amount of restitution awarded to the contact victim because it fell within the scope of his appeal waiver. The court vacated the restitution order because the district court's reasons for denying restitution to the non-contact victims contradicted the Supreme Court's instruction in Paroline v. United States. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings to determine an appropriate amount of restitution for each non-contact victim. View "United States v. Ahlazshuna Dillard" on Justia Law