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

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree murder, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition. The district court ruled that the petition was time-barred and, in the alternative, the petition was denied on its merits. The court was content to assume without deciding that petitioner's claims were not time-barred. The court held, however, that petitioner's claims lacked merit and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Waddell v. Dept. of Correction" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Somalia, was convicted of unlawful wounding and grand larceny. 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) required the mandatory federal detention, without the possibility of bond, of certain deportable criminal aliens "when" those aliens were released from other custody. At issue was whether, as the district court held, defendant, a deportable criminal alien who was not immediately taken into federal custody upon his release from other custody, was exempt from section 1226(c)'s mandatory detention provision and therefore was entitled to a bond hearing. The court held that the BIA's interpretation of section 1226(c) in In re Rojas was reasonable, and must be afforded deference. Moreover, the Government's supposed failure to comply with a statutory immediacy requirement - when the statute did not specify a consequence for such noncompliance - did not bestow a windfall upon criminal aliens. Therefore, defendant remained subject to mandatory detention. View "Hosh v. Lucero" on Justia Law

Defendants, all Somalis, were convicted, among other things, of the crime of piracy under 18 U.S.C. 1651 after they launched an attack on the USS Nicholas on the high seas between Somalia and the Seychelles. On appeal, defendants challenged their convictions and sentences on several grounds, including that their attack on the USS Nicholas did not, as a matter of law, amount to a section 1651 piracy offense. Because the district court correctly applied the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 101, definition of piracy as customary international law, the court rejected defendants' challenge to their Count One piracy convictions, as well as their mandatory life sentences. Defendants raised several additional appellate contentions which the court also rejected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences of each of the defendants. View "United States v. Dire; United States v. Ali; United States v. Umar; United States v. Gurewardher; United States v. Hasan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of its complaint, alleging that Arlington County's sign ordinance violated the First Amendment. Plaintiff had commissioned a painting described as including "happy cartoon dogs, bones, and paw prints" and the county subsequently notified plaintiff that the painting violated the sign ordinance. The court agreed with the district court that the ordinance was a content-neutral restriction on speech that satisfied intermediate scrutiny. Finding no merit to the other constitutional challenges, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wag More Dogs, LLC v. Cozart" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for making, or aiding and abetting the making of, a false entry in a bankruptcy-related document. The charges arose from a fraudulent scheme directed by the co-defendant where the co-defendant established companies and maintained control over them by installing his associates as their nominal heads. The co-defendant then convinced individuals to invest in the companies through loans that he represented would be repaid in interest, but these companies in fact had no legitimate business activity and he misappropriated the invested funds for personal use. Defendant was the manager of one such company. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred in failing to provide several requested jury charges, the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct, defense counsel provided ineffective assistance, and the district court improperly refused to apply a mitigating role adjustment in sentencing. The court found defendant's arguments to be either without merit or noncognizable and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Powell, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed for her 2010 federal convictions of social security fraud and aggravated identity theft. Defendant challenged the district court's application of the "vulnerable victim" enhancement in Section 3A1.1(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court concluded that there was no error in defendant's sentencing where defendant selected a disabled victim with full knowledge of that victim's vulnerability. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Etoty" on Justia Law

These appeals arose from an ALJ's order, affirmed by the Benefits Review Board, finding that Gary Looney suffered disabling obstructive lung disease arising out of his work as a coal miner and awarding his widow black lung benefits payable by Looney's former employer. The court determined that the award of benefits was supported by the record and affirmed the award of benefits to Looney, denying his former employer's petition for review. View "Harman Mining Co v. DOWCP" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of the second-degree murder and assault of his eight-year-old stepson. On appeal, defendant challenged his murder conviction and sentence. Among the issues defendant raised was a claim that the introduction of statements describing prior acts of abuse that the child made during a meeting with a social worker violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Applying Supreme Court precedent beginning with Crawford v. Washington, the court concluded that the primary purpose of the meeting between the child and the social worker was nontestimonial and therefore held that the admission of the child's statements did not violate defendant's constitutional rights. Finding no merit in any of defendant's other claims, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Deleon" on Justia Law

This case involved two putative class actions, consolidated on interlocutory appeal, brought by purchasers of real estate brokerage services in South Carolina. Each complaint alleged that the real estate brokerages serving as board members of the local multiple listing service (MLS) conspired to unfairly restrain market competition in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. The court held that plaintiffs sufficiently pled the plurality of actors necessary for section 1 to apply. At this early stage of the litigation, the court was not in a position to weigh the alleged anticompetitve risks of the MLS rules against their procompetitive justifications. This rule of reason inquiry was best conducted with the benefit of discovery and the court expressed no view on the merits of the litigation beyond recognizing the sufficiency of the complaints. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Robertson v. Sea Pines Real Estate Co." on Justia Law

Mid-Atlantic Sports Network appealed an order of the FCC. Based on a review of its Media Bureau decision and the record, the FCC found that Time Warner provided legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for declining to carry Mid-Atlantic Sports Network programming on an analog tier in its North Carolina cable system. On appeal, Mid-Atlantic Sports Network argued that the FCC's Order should be vacated and remanded because Time Warner engaged in unlawful discrimination. Because the FCC acted neither arbitrarily nor capriciously in rendering its order, the court concluded that the FCC acted within its discretion, and the court denied the petition for review and affirmed the FCC's Order. View "TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding v. FCC" on Justia Law