You are here

Opinions

The Southern District of West Virginia offers a database of opinions starting in the year 2001, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search to the right or sort using the drop-downs below.

5:20-cr-00032

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 33], upon which the Court held an evidentiary hearing on March 5, 2021.

Author:
Frank W. Volk
2:20-cr-00196

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Defendant’s motion to suppress almost three pounds of methamphetamine1 and $7,061 in cash seized during a search of his residence by the Metropolitan Drug Enforcement Network Team (“MDENT”). I find that neither the warrant application nor the warrant issued contain statements of apparent facts from which a reasonable judicial officer or a reasonable police officer could find probable cause. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:20-cr-00063

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Defendant’s motion to suppress 48 pounds of methamphetamine,1 $41,000 in cash, and all other evidence seized during a search of his residence by the Metropolitan Drug Enforcement Network Team (“MDENT”). I find that neither the warrant application nor the warrant itself contain statements of apparent facts from which a reasonable judicial officer or a reasonable police officer could find probable cause. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:06-cv-00612

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Enforce the Final Judgment Order and Final Order. [ECF No. 268]. Class Counsel [ECF No. 277] and Intervenor Plaintiffs [ECF No. 278] have responded. Defendant has replied. [ECF No. 279]. The Motion is now ripe for decision. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:21-cv-00129, 2:19-cr-00163

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the United States Motion for an Order Directing Defendant's Former Counsel to Provide Information to the Court Concerning Movant's Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and for an Abeyance. (ECF No. 50). The Court GRANTS the United States' motion as follows.

Author:
Cheryl A. Eifert
2:19-cv-00415

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Settlement Documents Under Seal [ECF No. 54]. For the reasons explained herein, the Motion is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:20-cv-00517

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Defendant West Virginia Parkways Authority’s Motion to Dismiss. [ECF No. 17]. Parties have responded, [ECF No. 23], and replied, [ECF No. 28]. Parties have also submitted supplemental briefs as directed by the court. [ECF Nos. 36, 37]. This motion is ripe for decision.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:19-cr-00296

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Nicholas Elias Boggess. [ECF No. 55]. Parties have responded [ECF No. 58] and replied [ECF No. 59] and the Motion is ripe for decision. On December 3, 2019, the Government filed an indictment against Defendant charging him with possession of a firearm not registered under the National Firearms and Transfer Record in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871. [ECF No. 16]. Specifically, Defendant is charged with knowingly possessing a pipe bomb, a destructive device, which was not registered. Defendant filed this Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) is an unconstitutional exercise of the Taxing Power both facially and as applied to Defendant. [ECF No. 55, at 1]. For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED...

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:20-cv-00414

Memorandum Opinion and Order

I have reviewed Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint [ECF No. 1], Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 17], the Memorandum in Support [ECF No. 18], the attached exhibits, Plaintiff’s Opposition [ECF No. 26], and Defendant’s Reply [ECF No. 27]. In addition, I have reviewed the supplemental authority filed by both parties during the pendency of the Motion to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 38, 39, 40, 44, 45]. For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that Defendant’s motion should be GRANTED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:19-cr-00178

Opinion

On September 29, 2020, Defendant Brooke Alexandria Kimble appeared before me for a sentencing hearing. I had previously accepted her plea of guilty to Distribution of a Quantity of Fentanyl, a Schedule II Controlled Substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), as charged in Count One of the Indictment filed against her. However, I had deferred acceptance of the plea agreement until sentencing. Accepting this plea agreement would have required me to impose a sentence within the range of 120 to 180 months in prison. At that point, Defendant’s advisory Guidelines range had been calculated to be 168 to 210 months. Defendant sought a downward variance to a sentence of 120 months...

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages