Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff – v. DONALD CRAIG MELVIN Defendant –

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-27 The Fourth Circuit vacated Donald Craig Melvin’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing without the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement. The court held that the district court committed reversible procedural error by allowing the Government to introduce a new ACCA predicate offense at the sentencing hearing after failing to object to the presentence report within the 14-day deadline required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f). The court applied the standard established in *United States v. Hodge*, 902 F.3d 420 (4th Cir. 2018), which mandates that the Government be held to the same procedural standards as a defendant regarding objections to presentence reports. Under Rule 32, parties must state objections in writing within 14 days of receiving the report; absent “good cause,” untimely objections are forfeited. The court found no good cause existed for the Government’s failure to object earlier, noting that the Government’s strategic decision not to raise the new predicate until after its initial arguments failed constituted an impermissible attempt to surprise the defense and subvert sentencing strategy. The court further rejected the Government’s argument that the error was harmless under *United States v. Dix*, distinguishing *Dix* on the basis that the Government in this case withheld its argument until after an adverse ruling, whereas *Dix* involved arguments made before any adverse ruling. Because the untimely predicate increased Melvin’s sentence from a 10-year maximum to an 188-month mandatory minimum, the error was not harmless. As a practical consequence, the judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to resentence Melvin without applying the ACCA enhancement based on the newly introduced predicate offense. Additionally, the court held that the Government forfeited its argument regarding Melvin’s appeal waiver by failing to raise it in its initial responsive filings. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.