The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished per curiam opinion on Jan. 26, 2026, vacating a district court's order that had granted post-conviction relief to Allen Gill under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court remanded the case with instructions to reinstate Gill's three convictions for use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence resulting in death.
The case centers on Allen Gill, also known by the aliases "Bam" and "Bam-Bam," who had successfully challenged his convictions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore. Senior District Judge James K. Bredar had granted Gill's § 2255 motion, which vacated three convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) for using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence resulting in death.
The government appealed the district court's decision, arguing that the relief granted to Gill was improper. The Fourth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Paul V. Niemeyer and Stephanie D. Thacker, along with Senior Circuit Judge Henry F. Floyd, agreed with the government's position.
In their brief per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit applied de novo review to the district court's legal determinations regarding the habeas corpus petition. The court cited United States v. Hopkins, 268 F.3d 222, 224 (4th Cir. 2001), establishing that questions of law in habeas corpus cases receive fresh review on appeal without deference to the lower court's analysis.
The underlying criminal case dates back to 2007, when Gill was originally prosecuted under case number 1:07-cr-00149-JKB-3 in the District of Maryland. Gill later filed his post-conviction challenge in 2016 under case number 1:16-cv-02749-JKB, seeking relief under § 2255, which allows federal prisoners to challenge their convictions and sentences on constitutional or jurisdictional grounds.
Section 2255 petitions, often called federal habeas corpus for prisoners, provide a mechanism for defendants to challenge their federal convictions after direct appeals have been exhausted. Common grounds for § 2255 relief include ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or changes in legal precedent that affect the validity of the underlying conviction.
The specific charges against Gill involved violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j), which criminalizes the use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence that results in death. This statute carries severe penalties, including potential life imprisonment or death sentences in certain circumstances. The law requires prosecutors to prove that the defendant used or carried a firearm during a crime of violence and that death resulted from the firearm use.
The government's appeal was handled by U.S. Attorney Erek L. Barron and Assistant U.S. Attorney David C. Bornstein from the Office of the United States Attorney in Baltimore. Gill was represented by Federal Public Defender James Wyda and Assistant Federal Public Defender Paresh S. Patel from the Office of the Federal Public Defender in Greenbelt, Maryland.
The Fourth Circuit's decision represents a significant victory for federal prosecutors, who had argued that the district court erred in granting Gill's post-conviction relief. By vacating the district court's order and remanding with instructions to reinstate the convictions, the appeals court effectively reversed the lower court's finding that Gill's convictions were invalid.
The case was submitted to the Fourth Circuit on Nov. 25, 2025, and decided approximately two months later on Jan. 26, 2026. The relatively quick turnaround suggests the panel found the legal issues straightforward, though the brief nature of the published opinion provides limited insight into the court's specific reasoning.
As an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit's decision in United States v. Gill does not establish binding precedent within the circuit. However, the ruling demonstrates the appeals court's willingness to closely scrutinize district court decisions granting post-conviction relief in serious federal criminal cases.
The remand with instructions to reinstate Gill's convictions means the case will return to Senior District Judge Bredar, who must now enter an order restoring the original firearm convictions. Gill's legal team may consider seeking further review, though options for additional appeals in § 2255 cases are typically limited.
The case highlights the ongoing challenges defendants face in post-conviction proceedings, where courts apply heightened scrutiny to claims that convictions should be overturned. Federal § 2255 petitions have notably low success rates, with courts requiring clear showings of constitutional violations or fundamental errors in the original proceedings.
For Gill, the Fourth Circuit's ruling represents a significant setback in his efforts to challenge convictions that likely carry substantial prison sentences. The reinstatement of three federal firearm convictions under § 924(j) means Gill will continue serving his original sentence while exhausting any remaining legal options.