Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The court held that, in light of its review of defendants' specific arguments and based on the totality of the surrounding circumstances, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress his statements; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the third indictment because defendant was first arrested for the two counts of aggravated sexual abuse in the Eastern District of Virginia and that arrest was for the same charges for the same conduct listed in the operative third indictment; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Government's motion in limine to exclude defendant's expert witness. Therefore, finding no error, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful importation of heroine and defendant subsequently appealed his sentence. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court applied the wrong legal standard and that the government's failure to timely object to the PSR should have precluded the court's consideration of the government's objection to application of the safety valve. The court also rejected defendant's challenges to the district court's denial of relief under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f). Defendant bore the burden of proving that he had provided truthful and complete disclosure to the government, but he presented no evidence compelling such a conclusion. The district court committed no error when concluding that defendant's international-clothes-buying story was false, and that conclusion provided a proper basis for the court's rejection of defendant's claim that he was entitled to sentencing under the safety valve. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Aidoo" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of sexual exploitation of a minor (Count 1), three counts of attempted enticement of a minor (Counts 6-8), and nine counts of witness tampering (Counts 3-5 and 9-14). Defendant subsequently appealed his convictions and sentence. The court held that defendant's claim for improper venue was without merit where defendant conducted at least some of his activity from the Eastern District of Virginia; the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions on Counts 6-8; and the district court did not err by denying defendant the right of a meaningful allocution before pronouncing sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Engle" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the use of his presentence report (PSR) to determine the circumstances surrounding two prior violent-felony convictions for sentencing purposes. The court found it was plain error for the district court to use the PSR's discussion of the circumstances surrounding these two convictions in applying the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), enhancement. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for a new sentence hearing on this issue. View "United States v. Boykin, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought an action alleging that his dismissal from medical school for unprofessional behavior violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12182. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the medical school and plaintiff appealed. Because the court agreed with the district court that, with or without a reasonable accommodation of plaintiff's ADHD and anxiety disorder, plaintiff was not "otherwise qualified" to participate in the medical school's program, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health" on Justia Law

Plaintiff commenced this action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 30104, alleging that he was a seaman in the employ of defendants and that he had been injured in the course of his employment by their negligence. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff had not adequately demonstrated that (1) he was a seaman and (2) his injury occurred during the course of his employment as a seaman. The court concluded that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim where it generally had federal question jurisdiction over Jones Act claims and plaintiff's complaint in particular alleged a colorable Jones Act claim in that it was not "so substantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions . . . , or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy." Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

After defendant was indicted for two drug trafficking crimes, he filed a motion to suppress the cocaine discovered in and taken from a secret compartment in his vehicle, alleging that the search of the vehicle violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted the motion on the ground that the search exceeded the scope of defendant's consent. Because the court concluded that the district court applied the wrong legal standards for determining whether law enforcement officers had consent to search defendant's vehicle and, in any event, whether they had probable cause to search it, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Ortiz" on Justia Law

Franklin Insurance commenced this action against its insured, School Board, for a declaratory judgment that Franklin Insurance owed no duty to defend the School Board in an action commenced by the School Board employees for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 216(b), nor any duty to indemnify the School Board for any judgment that might be entered in the action. The court concluded that the failure to comply with FLSA was a wrongful act and that, while a judgment awarding unpaid wages would not be a covered loss under the policy because payment of those wages was a preexisting duty, any obligation to pay liquidated damages and attorneys' fees would cause the School Board a loss from a wrongful act, covered by the policy. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Franklin Insurance. View "Republic Franklin Ins. Co. v. Albemarle County Sch. Bd." on Justia Law

Appellants challenged the Agencies' execution of a tiered review process related to planning improvements to Virginia's Interstate 81 corridor. The district court rejected appellants' challenge which alleged various constitutional and statutory violations. On appeal, appellants claimed that the Agencies were attempting to foreclose consideration of environmentally friendly alternatives for specific sections of I-81 by choosing a corridor-wide improvement concept in the first stage of the review process. The court held, however, that appellants misapprehended the Agencies' position where the Agencies planned to comply with the Stipulation in this case and the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., by considering site-specific alternatives to the corridor-wide concept in subsequent stages. Because there was no actual dispute here, and because appellants could not show any injury or imminent threat of injury, this suit was not justiciable. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Shenandoah Valley Network v. Capka, et al." on Justia Law

Wachovia appealed from the district court's refusal to vacate an arbitration award entered against it after it sued several former employees on what the arbitrators determined were frivolous claims. Wachovia argued that the arbitrators violated section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 10(a)(3), and "manifestly disregarded" the law when they awarded attorneys' fees and costs under the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Act (FCPA), S.C. Code Ann. 15-36-10. The court held that arbitrators have broad discretion to set applicable procedure and the court would not overturn an award for violating section 10(a)(3)'s protection against "any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced" where the arbitrators attempted to address the one party's unhappiness with the fairness of the hearing and that party refused to take advantage of the opportunity provided. The court could not hold that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law when they awarded the attorneys' fees and costs where, in this case, the court found whether the arbitrators erred by not applying the FCPA's procedural requirements was a question that was itself not clearly defined and was subject to debate. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Wachovia Securities, LLC v. Brand, II" on Justia Law