The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a published opinion Tuesday affirming the federal convictions of four co-defendants who challenged their sentences in consolidated appeals from the Eastern District of Virginia.
In *United States v. Nelson Evans*, the court affirmed convictions against Nelson Evans, Kalub Shipman (also known as Kato and Baydo), Jaquate Simpson (also known as Quay, J, Stacks, and Predator), and Landis Jackson (also known as Juve and Juvie). The appeals were consolidated under case numbers 24-4037, 24-4051, 24-4073, and 24-4103.
Judge Toby Heytens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Paul Niemeyer and Judge Allison Rushing. The three-judge panel heard oral arguments Oct. 23, 2025, before issuing the published decision.
All four defendants were originally convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Norfolk before Senior District Judge John A. Gibney Jr. The convictions stem from the same underlying criminal case, filed in 2020 under case number 2:20-cr-00090.
The defendants were represented by separate counsel during the appeals process. Gerald Thomas Zerkin of Richmond represented one appellant, while Heather Lynn Carlton of Carlton Law PLC in Charlottesville, William Jeffrey Dinkin of William J. Dinkin PLC in Richmond, and Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best of Elizabeth Franklin-Best P.C. in Columbia, South Carolina, represented the other appellants.
The government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Eastern District of Virginia, including Daniel J. Honold who argued the case. U.S. Attorney Erik S. Siebert, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kristin G. Bird, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph E. DePadilla were also listed on the government's brief.
While the court document reveals the procedural history and outcome of the appeals, the specific charges against the defendants and the factual basis for their convictions are not detailed in the available portion of the opinion. The use of multiple aliases for several defendants suggests the case may have involved organized criminal activity or conspiracy charges.
The Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction encompasses Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The court's decision to issue a published opinion indicates the case addresses legal issues with broader significance beyond the immediate parties.
Consolidated appeals are common when multiple defendants from the same underlying criminal case raise similar legal challenges. This procedural efficiency allows the appellate court to address related arguments in a single proceeding rather than hearing separate cases that might reach conflicting conclusions on similar issues.
The timing of the case reflects the typical pace of federal criminal appeals. The original charges were filed in 2020, and the appeals court heard arguments in late 2025 before issuing its decision in January 2026. This timeline suggests the defendants were convicted at the district court level sometime between 2020 and 2024.
Senior District Judge John A. Gibney Jr., who presided over the original trial, has served on the federal bench since 2011 after being nominated by President Barack Obama. He took senior status in recent years but continues to handle cases for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Eastern District of Virginia, headquartered in Norfolk, Richmond, and Alexandria, handles federal criminal cases across a significant portion of the state. The district is known for its efficient case management, often called the "rocket docket" for its quick processing of cases.
The Fourth Circuit's affirmation of all four convictions suggests the appellate court found no reversible error in the district court proceedings. Published opinions from the circuit court serve as binding precedent for lower courts within the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction.
Appellate courts typically review criminal convictions for legal errors rather than re-examining factual determinations made by juries. The defendants may have raised challenges related to jury instructions, evidence rulings, sentencing guidelines, or constitutional violations, but the court found these arguments insufficient to warrant reversal.
The case demonstrates the federal court system's handling of multi-defendant criminal prosecutions and the appellate process that follows. With the Fourth Circuit's affirmation, the defendants' options for further appeal are limited to seeking review by the Supreme Court, which grants certiorari in only a small percentage of cases.