The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion Tuesday affirming the convictions of four defendants in a consolidated criminal case from the Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk. The court ruled in favor of the government in appeals brought by Nelson Evans, Kalub Shipman, Jaquate Simpson, and Landis Jackson, all stemming from the same underlying criminal prosecution.
Judge Toby Heytens wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Judge Paul V. Niemeyer and Judge Allison Jones Rushing. The three-judge panel heard oral arguments in the consolidated appeals on Oct. 23, 2025, and issued its decision Jan. 21, 2026.
The cases originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk, where Senior District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. presided over the criminal proceedings. All four defendants were convicted in case number 2:20-cr-00090, which was filed in 2020.
The defendants each filed separate appeals challenging their convictions. Evans appealed in case 24-4037, while Shipman, who also goes by the aliases Kato and Baydo, appealed in case 24-4051. Simpson, known by multiple aliases including Quay, J, Stacks, and Predator, filed his appeal as case 24-4073. Jackson, who uses the aliases Juve and Juvie, appealed in case 24-4103.
The Fourth Circuit consolidated the four appeals for efficiency, given their common origin in the same district court case. This procedural move allowed the appeals court to address any overlapping legal issues in a single published opinion while maintaining separate case numbers for each defendant.
The defendants were represented by a team of experienced criminal defense attorneys. Gerald Thomas Zerkin of Richmond, Virginia, argued for one of the appellants, while Heather Lynn Carlton of Carlton Law PLC in Charlottesville, Virginia, represented another. William Jeffrey Dinkin of William J. Dinkin, PLC in Richmond, Virginia, and Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best of Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C. in Columbia, South Carolina, also served as counsel for the appellants.
The government was represented by Daniel J. Honold from the Office of the United States Attorney in Alexandria, Virginia, who argued the case before the appeals court. The government's brief was prepared by U.S. Attorney Erik S. Siebert, along with Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kristin G. Bird and Joseph E. DePadilla.
The Fourth Circuit's decision to publish the opinion indicates the court viewed the case as establishing important legal precedent or addressing issues of significant public interest. Published opinions carry more precedential weight than unpublished decisions and are often cited in future cases involving similar legal questions.
The timing of the case shows a relatively swift appeals process, with the district court case filed in 2020 and the appeals decided in early 2026. The October 2025 oral arguments provided the defendants' counsel and government attorneys an opportunity to present their positions directly to the three-judge panel.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over federal appeals from district courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The court is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, and regularly hears cases involving federal criminal law, civil rights, and constitutional issues.
Senior District Judge Gibney, who presided over the original trial, was appointed to the federal bench in 2011 by President Barack Obama. He took senior status in 2023, allowing him to continue hearing cases with a reduced caseload.
The consolidated nature of these appeals suggests the defendants may have been involved in related criminal activity, though the specific charges and underlying facts of the case are not detailed in the available court documents. Federal criminal cases in Norfolk often involve drug trafficking, firearms violations, or organized criminal enterprises operating in the Hampton Roads region.
The affirmance of all four convictions represents a significant victory for federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia. The district has a reputation for efficiently handling complex criminal cases and has been the venue for numerous high-profile prosecutions over the years.
The defendants retain the right to petition the Supreme Court for review of the Fourth Circuit's decision, though the high court grants certiorari in only a small percentage of cases. Any such petition would need to be filed within 90 days of the Fourth Circuit's decision.
The published opinion will now serve as binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit and persuasive authority in other federal circuits, depending on the specific legal issues addressed by the court in its reasoning.