Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), holding that defendant's prior conviction under the North Carolina crime of voluntary manslaughter was a violent felony under the force clause of the ACCA. The court explained that voluntary manslaughter in North Carolina required an intentional killing, and thus plainly involved "the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another." View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for seven counts of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence that he knowingly received and possessed the illicit files and based on insufficient evidence that he received child pornography using any means or facility of interstate commerce. The court also held that the district court did not erroneously instruct the jury because the instruction at issue was merely a variance from the superseding indictment, and such variance did not violate defendant's constitutional rights. View "United States v. Miltier" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for seven counts of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence that he knowingly received and possessed the illicit files and based on insufficient evidence that he received child pornography using any means or facility of interstate commerce. The court also held that the district court did not erroneously instruct the jury because the instruction at issue was merely a variance from the superseding indictment, and such variance did not violate defendant's constitutional rights. View "United States v. Miltier" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of child pornography contained on a hard drive recovered at his home. Defendant challenged the warrant allowing the FBI to deploy the Network Investigative Technique (NIT) to locate users accessing a child pornography website. The court held that even if the warrant was unconstitutional, the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress because the Leon good faith exception applied. In this case, there was no indication that the magistrate judge wholly abandoned its judicial role, or that the affidavit lacked an indicia of probable cause, or that the FBI agent mislead the magistrate judge with falsehoods or reckless disregard for the truth. The agent detailed the investigatory difficulties posed by the dark web and devoted several pages to explaining the NIT's mechanism. View "United States v. McLamb" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of child pornography contained on a hard drive recovered at his home. Defendant challenged the warrant allowing the FBI to deploy the Network Investigative Technique (NIT) to locate users accessing a child pornography website. The court held that even if the warrant was unconstitutional, the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress because the Leon good faith exception applied. In this case, there was no indication that the magistrate judge wholly abandoned its judicial role, or that the affidavit lacked an indicia of probable cause, or that the FBI agent mislead the magistrate judge with falsehoods or reckless disregard for the truth. The agent detailed the investigatory difficulties posed by the dark web and devoted several pages to explaining the NIT's mechanism. View "United States v. McLamb" on Justia Law

The offense of unlawful wounding under West Virginia law is a crime of violence under Section 4B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The Fourth Circuit held that unlawful wounding is categorically a crime of violence under the force clause because it applies to a defendant who shoots, stabs, cuts, or wounds any person. Therefore, the statute's text dictates that the minimum conduct required for conviction of unlawful wounding must at least involve physical force capable of causing physical injury to another person. Because the district court concluded that unlawful wounding did not qualify as a crime of violence in this case, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Covington" on Justia Law

A civil commitment hearing under the Adam Walsh Act, 18 U.S.C. 4248, was not a "civil action" as that term is used in 18 U.S.C. 1658(a). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's civil commitment order under the Act and rejected petitioner's claim that the four-year catch-all statute of limitations Congress enacted for civil actions under section 1658(a) applied to his case. The court reasoned that the statutory requirement that a civil commitment proceeding be initiated against a person while he is in federal custody amounts to a de facto statute of limitations that provides the same finality and certainty as a conventional limitation without implicating the concerns that arise from statutes totally silent as to timing. Therefore, the timing of a civil commitment proceeding was otherwise provided by law. View "United States v. Searcy" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for four counts of sex trafficking by use of force, fraud, or coercion and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. The court held that evidence was provided to support each element of defendant's convictions. In this case, the court did not have the power to reweigh the evidence or to second guess the jury's credibility determinations. The court also held that the district court carefully considered relevant factors in differentiating between types of sexual history evidence. Therefore, the district court's decision to strike some of the evidence was fair and the court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Maynes, Jr." on Justia Law

Movant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A), seeking authorization to file a second or successive application for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his 2001 sentence of four life terms plus 45 years imposed by a Virginia state court for nonhomicide crimes he committed as a juvenile. The Fourth Circuit denied the motion because the claim movant sought to present to the district was raised in his first federal application for a writ of habeas corpus, and therefore movant failed to make a prima facie showing that his successive habeas application would allege a claim that was not presented in a prior application, as the statute required. View "In re: Jarius Phillips" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit held that defendant's civil commitment judgment was not void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and the district court had discretion to deny relief under Rules 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6). In this case, defendant pleaded guilty to failing to comply with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). While in custody for that offense, defendant was certified as a sexually dangerous person and civilly committed. The Supreme Court later held in a different case that the version of SORNA then applicable to defendant's offense did not require a sex offender to update his registration in his former home state after moving to a foreign country. Consequently, defendant moved to have his SORNA conviction vacated and then sought relief from his civil commitment. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for relief from civil commitment, holding that the civil commitment judgment was not void, and the district court weighed carefully the competing interests, in light of all the facts, and reasonably determined that defendant should remain civilly committed. View "United States v. Welsh" on Justia Law