Filter Results

Active Filters
X 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
Filter by Topic
Filter by Content Type

Showing 1 - 15 of 56 results

    • Brief

    United States v. Ravenell

    Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief on Behalf off the National Association of Criminal Defense  Lawyers in Support of Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing en Banc

    Argument: On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, NACDL’s Amicus Brief is in Support of a Petition for Rehearing En Banc. Issue: The issue raised is the court’s refusal to instruct on a statute of limitations defense, which seriously impaired Ravenell’s ability to present his defense, resulted in the denial of the constitutional right to have a jury decide if the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution does not violate the statute of limitations. The panel found the district court need not instruct the jury on a statute of limitations defense timely raised by the defendant. NACDL argues that the panel majority failed to protect the rights of the accused and undermined the fundamental protections of our criminal justice system when it concluded that a district court need not instruct a jury on a statute-of-limitations defense and also improperly substituted its own evaluation of the trial evidence for that of the jury. If the panel majority’s decision, which conflicts with Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent, is not corrected it will adversely affect criminal defendants in the future and undermine the fair administration of justice in criminal cases within the Circuit: the denial of the constitutional right to have a jury decide if the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution does not violate the statute of limitations.

    • Content Page

    United States v. Chatrie, No. 3:19-cr-130 (E.D. Va.)

    In United States v. Chatrie, No. 3:19-cr-130 (E.D. Va.), Okello Chatrie was charged with armed robbery based on Google Sensorvault data obtained by law enforcement via a geofence warrant. Chatrie is represented by Michael Price, Senior Litigation Counsel for the Fourth Amendment Center, and Laura Koenig, a public defender in the Eastern District of Virginia. 

    • Brief

    United States v. Sloan, 3:93 CR28-MOC (W.D.N.C. June 8, 2021

    Supplement to Pro Se CR Motion (Apr. 22, 2021)

    Response (May 24, 2021)

    Reply (June 1, 2021)

    Def's Notice of Supp Authority (June 2, 2021)

    Order (June 8, 2021)


    Argument: Sloan was originally sentenced to Life plus 540 months after trial on several crack conspiracy and gun counts, Sentence was later reduced to 235 months on drug counts and remained at 540 months on 3 stacked 924(c)s. Sloan has now served 30 years and has 34 years remaining.  Defense argues ECR exists because of following intervening changes in law:

    1)  DOJ's Robinson Memo "adopting practice of basing each Section 924(c) in an indictment upon a separate predicate offense";

    2) pre-Booker, so guidelines were mandatory at time of sentencing

    3) SCOTUS prohibited mandatory LWOP for juvenile offenders as client was between 15-20 during conspiracy and is 48 years old now. 

    4) SCOTUS decided Dean v. US, stating district courts can and should consider the mandatory consecutive nature of 924(c) sentences 

    5) Prior to FSA changing the 924(c) stacking provisions, which would not result in a 180-month sentence, rather thana 540-month sentence

    The Court found ECR existed because Sloan’s original 540-month sentence based on stacked § 924(c)s would result in a 180-month sentence today.  Other supporting factors include strong evidence of rehabilitation (47 programs and work assessments, earned GED, two minor infractions in 30 years of prison); he was juvenile when he committed the crimes and 22 when sentenced; and his strong support network and community. Court reduces sentence to time-served plus 14 days