The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions of four co-defendants in a federal criminal case that originated in the Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk. The court issued a published opinion on Jan. 21, 2026, in the consolidated appeals involving Nelson Evans, Kalub Shipman, Jaquate Simpson, and Landis Jackson.
The appeals stemmed from convictions in case number 2:20-cr-00090 before Senior District Judge John A. Gibney Jr. in the Eastern District of Virginia. The four defendants were prosecuted together in the same underlying federal criminal case, which was filed in 2020.
The defendants appealed their convictions through separate but related appeals numbered 24-4037, 24-4051, 24-4073, and 24-4103. Evans was the appellant 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 heard oral arguments in the consolidated appeals on Oct. 23, 2025. A three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Niemeyer, Rushing, and Heytens presided over the case. Judge Heytens wrote the opinion for the court, with Judge Niemeyer and Judge Rushing joining in the decision.
The appeals were handled by multiple defense attorneys representing the four defendants. Gerald Thomas Zerkin of Richmond, Virginia, argued for one of the appellants. Heather Lynn Carlton of Carlton Law PLC in Charlottesville, Virginia, also represented one of the defendants. William Jeffrey Dinkin of William J. Dinkin, PLC in Richmond, Virginia, served as counsel for another appellant. Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best of Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C. in Columbia, South Carolina, rounded out the defense team.
The government was represented by Daniel J. Honold from the Office of the United States Attorney in Alexandria, Virginia, who argued the case for the United States. The prosecution team also included Erik S. Siebert, the United States Attorney, along with Assistant United States Attorneys Kristin G. Bird and Joseph E. DePadilla from the Office of the United States Attorney.
The Fourth Circuit's decision to publish the opinion indicates that the court viewed the case as establishing important legal precedent or addressing significant legal issues. Published opinions carry more weight as precedent than unpublished decisions and are typically reserved for cases that clarify or develop areas of federal law.
The fact that four co-defendants were convicted in the same case and all appealed their convictions suggests this was a complex multi-defendant federal prosecution. Such cases often involve charges related to conspiracy, organized criminal activity, or coordinated criminal enterprises. The use of multiple aliases by several defendants, as reflected in the court documents, is common in cases involving ongoing criminal organizations or drug trafficking operations.
The timing of the case, filed in 2020 and reaching the appellate level by 2024-2025, reflects the typical timeline for complex federal criminal prosecutions. Multi-defendant cases often take several years to progress through the federal court system due to the complexity of coordinating multiple defense teams, extensive discovery, and pre-trial motions.
The Eastern District of Virginia, where the case originated, handles federal prosecutions for the eastern portion of Virginia, including the Norfolk area. This district is known for its efficient handling of complex federal cases and is often referred to as the "rocket docket" due to its swift case processing.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, has jurisdiction over federal appeals from district courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The court's affirmation of all four convictions suggests that the district court properly conducted the trial and that any legal challenges raised by the defendants lacked merit.
While the specific charges and details of the criminal activity are not disclosed in the available court documents, the involvement of multiple defendants with various aliases and the decision to prosecute the case in federal court indicates this was likely a significant criminal enterprise case. Federal prosecution typically occurs when crimes cross state lines, involve federal agencies, or fall under specific federal statutes.
The published nature of the opinion means that the Fourth Circuit's analysis and legal reasoning will serve as binding precedent for future cases within the circuit and persuasive authority for courts in other jurisdictions. This suggests the appeals raised substantive legal questions that the court believed warranted detailed analysis and guidance for future cases.
The affirmation of all four convictions represents a complete victory for federal prosecutors and indicates that the district court's handling of the case met appellate scrutiny. The defendants' attorneys will need to decide whether to seek further review through a petition for rehearing or an appeal to the Supreme Court, though such options face significant procedural hurdles and are rarely successful in criminal cases.