United States v. Henry
673 F.3d 285
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Henrys were convicted in a federal jury trial for conspiring to grow, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute 100+ marijuana plants and for aiding in manufacture of 100+ plants; property in West Virginia was searched after a thermal-imaging warrant.
- Affidavit for the thermal-imaging warrant relied on multiple sources, including two unidentified informants and an inmate named Sandy, whose information covered past conduct; the affidavit connected the Henrys to a large indoor grow operation and to surrounding drug activity.
- Manning applied for and obtained a thermal-imaging warrant followed by a physical search, yielding 85 marijuana plants, growing equipment, drug paraphernalia, handwritten notes, and $1,800 in cash.
- Henrys moved to suppress the evidence from the searches, arguing the warrants and affidavits were insufficient; the magistrate and district court denied suppression.
- At sentencing, the district court denied safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) due to credibility findings and incomplete disclosure, leading to mandatory minimums of 60 months, which the Henrys challenge on appeal.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, upholding the suppression denial, the Oakland Cannabis-based limitation on medical-use evidence, and the safety-valve ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of affidavit for thermal-imaging warrant | Henrys challenge credibility and staleness of sources | Henrys argue insufficient probable cause | Probable cause supported by collective facts; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Admission of medical-use evidence under Oakland Cannabis | Henrys rely on medical-use defenses | Oakland Cannabis bars medical necessity as defense to CSA violations | District court did not abuse discretion; medical-use defense barred |
| Safety valve eligibility under § 3553(f) | Henrys provided truthful information; met five requirements | Courts must consider credibility and full disclosure, fifth prong unmet | District court did not clearly err; safety valve denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (probable cause assessment based on totality of the circumstances)
- Wellman, 663 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2011) (probable-cause review with deference to magistrate’s determination)
- Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (medical-use defense not available under CSA; no medical benefit)
- Aidoo, 670 F.3d 600 (4th Cir. 2012) (safety-valve factual review; credibility matters in § 3553(f)(5))
- Beltran-Ortiz, 91 F.3d 665 (4th Cir. 1996) (safety-valve requirements including truthful disclosure)
- Layton, 564 F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (credibility and deference in sentencing rulings)
- Nuzzo, 385 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2004) (consideration of false statements in credibility assessments)
- Brownlee, 204 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2000) (assessment of truthful disclosure in safety-valve context)