US v. Isiah Land, No. 16-7225 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7225 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ISIAH LAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:01-cr-00197-RBS-1; 2:16-cv00252-RBS) Submitted: March 15, 2018 Decided: March 28, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Paul E. Shelton, Research and Writing Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Christopher Catizone, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Isiah Land appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We previously granted a certificate of appealability on whether the district court erred in ruling that Land’s prior Virginia convictions for malicious wounding and unlawful wounding were violent felonies under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012), and we placed this appeal in abeyance for United States v. Jenkins, No. 16-4121, __ F. App’x __, 2018 WL 1225728 (4th Cir. Mar. 9, 2018) (holding Virginia convictions for unlawful wounding and malicious wounding qualified as violent felonies under § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)). In light of Jenkins, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Land, No. 2:01-cr-00197-RBS-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.