Court Affirms Sexual Abuse Convictions and Sentence for Former Teacher

US v. Brendann: Brendann was a teacher/advisor at an all-boys prep school (middle school), who engaged in a range of inappropriate behavior with students, up to and including sexual abuse and blackmail. He was convicted, after a trial, of child exploitation, possessing child sexual abuse material, and cyberstalking. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison, with an applicable Guideline “range” of life.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Brendann’s convictions and sentence, rejecting various challenges. First, the court held there was no abuse of discretion in the district court not holding a full competency hearing after Brendann reported suicidal thoughts on the first day of trial. The court noted that such thoughts are not, standing alone, enough to trigger competency concerns and that the other factors (including counsel’s statement that there was no other basis to question Brendann’s competency). Second, the court found no error in the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained from Brendann’s iPhone, concluding that there was neither interrogation nor coercion involved. Third, the court found that the Government had not withheld Jenks material for a witness who could not recall whether officers took notes of a statement he made, much less approved them as an accurate record of the conversation. Finally, the court found no error in sentencing, concluding that the district court properly considered (without giving much weight to) family and victim testimony.

No Plain Error Where Court Cites Need for Continued Psychiatric Medication as Basis for Sentence

US v. Melaku: In 2010, Melaku went on a spree in which he “fired multiple rounds . . . at various military-related sites” in DC’s Virginia suburbs (he was arrested at Arlington National Cemetery in possession of, among other things, “ammonium nitrate that he intended to leave or use on veterans’ grave markers”). He pleaded guilty to three charges, including a §924(c) count, in a binding plea agreement with a sentence of 25 years. After a competency hearing showed that Melaku was schizophrenic, but competent, the district court imposed that sentence.

After Davis, the Fourth Circuit vacated the §924(c) conviction and remanded for resentencing. After hearing further testimony on Melaku’s mental health and his treatment regimen, the district court ultimately imposed a sentence of 240 months in prison. In doing so, the district court stressed that it was “very important that you stay adherent to your medication regimen.” Melaku did not object.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Melaku’s sentence. Primarily, the court held that Melaku failed to show that any potential Tapia error was “plain.” That was because there was no clear guidance on whether concerns about maintaining a treatment regiment for a chronic condition was “rehabilitation,” nor could Melaku clearly show an error in that being part of the district court’s considerations, along with the need to protect the public. The court concluded that “forfeiture has consequences” and suggested the result might have been different absent plain error review.

Combined Incarceration and Home Confinement Terms Can’t Exceed Statutory Maximum

US v. Watson: Watson was sentenced in 2018 to a term of imprisonment and supervised release. If he violated his conditions of supervised release, he faced a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 48 months. He did violate, “almost immediately upon leaving prison,” leading to the revocation of his term of supervised release. The district court imposed a sentence of 41 months in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release, to include as a condition that he serve home detention of approximately 21 months.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated Watson’s sentence. It agreed with Watson that the combined terms of imprisonment and home detention imposed by the district court exceeded the 48-month statutory maximum. They must be considered separate, as home detention is considered an “alternative” to incarceration. The court also rejected the Government’s argument that even if that was the case that home detention time didn’t not count as 1-to-1 equivalent to incarceration.

Congrats to the Defender office in South Carolina on the win! 

North Carolina 2d-Degree Murder Is “Violent Felony”

US v. Goode: Goode pleaded guilty to (among other things) being a felon in possession of a firearm, pursuant to a plea agreement with a broad appeal waiver. The probation officer identified three prior convictions in North Carolina that they argued qualified as “violent felonies,” including 2d-degree murder, triggering the Armed Career Criminal Act. Goode initially objected to the ACCA designation, but later withdrew them. The district court imposed a sentence of 360 months in prison.

On appeal, Goode’s argued that his firearm conviction violated the Second Amendment and that his prior murder conviction was not a violent felony. The Government moved to dismiss the Second Amendment argument under the appeal waiver, but moved for a “summary affirmance” on the ACCA issue, arguing that Goode couldn’t not show plain error. After the motion to dismiss the Second Amendment issue was granted, the Government filed a second motion to dismiss as to the ACCA claim.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Goode’s sentence. First, it held that the Government had forfeited its right to seek dismissal of the ACCA claim because its response to Goode’s opening brief was to address it on the merits, rather than seeking dismissal. While subsequent Fourth Circuit law made it clear that the waiver would apply in such situations, that argument was there for the Government to make in this case, as well. Second, however, the court concluded that there was no error in the ACCA designation, plain or otherwise. Not only did 2d-degree murder in North Carolina require the use of force (even if by selling someone drugs upon which they overdosed), it required a mens rea more strict that recklessness.