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

Articles Posted in December, 2012
by
Defendant pled guilty to enticing or attempting to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court held that defendant's primary contention that the district court erred in interpreting 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), was procedurally defaulted because he failed to raise it during his initial plea proceeding. Moreover, defendant's statutory claim failed on the merits. The court also held that defendant's ineffective assistance arguments provided no substantive grounds for relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Fugit" on Justia Law

by
Defendant was convicted of one count of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon. Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. The court held that, because the stop and search of defendant's car and seizure of his cell phone did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights, the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's Rule 29 motions to dismiss where there were sufficient facts from which a jury could conclude that defendant possessed the ammunition. The court further held that defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable and the district court did not err in determining a base offense level of 26. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment View "United States v. Lawing" on Justia Law

by
Defendant, a convicted felon, pled guilty to possession of ammunition. On appeal, he contended that application of the felon-in-possession prohibition to him violated the Constitution. The court held that the application of the felon-in-possession prohibition to allegedly non-violent felons like defendant did not violate the Second Amendment. The court also held that defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated where there was a rational relation between the felon-in-possession prohibition as applied to a collector of dangerous, often stolen weapons and explosives who had repeatedly and flagrantly ignored the law. Accordingly, the court found defendant's claims on appeal to be without merit and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pruess" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs filed a pre-enforcement challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute restricting interstate transfers of handguns, 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3); a federal regulation implementing that statute, 27 C.F.R. 478.99; and a Virginia law prohibiting Virginia firearms dealers from selling handguns to non-residents of Virginia, Va. Code section 18.2-308.2:2. Because the challenged laws did not burden plaintiffs directly, and because plaintiffs were not prevented from acquiring the handguns they desired, they did not allege an injury in fact. Even if plaintiffs established an injury in fact, they were unable to demonstrate traceability. The court also held that there was no organizational standing. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint on standing grounds. View "Lane v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

by
Defendant was convicted of four counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiring to commit mail fraud. The court held that even if the district court erred in requiring defendant to adhere to the proffer agreement, admission of the proffered statements at issue was harmless; the district court did not err in denying defendant's Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal where the government presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that CitiCapital had a property interest in the lease-to-own payments at issue; the government submitted sufficient evidence to the jury that it could find that defendant obtained the payments "by means of material false or fraudulent pretenses[;]" and the government presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant caused the mails to be used to execute his fraudulent scheme. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gillion" on Justia Law

by
The Trustee filed this action against former directors and officers of Bancshares. The directors also all formerly served as the officers and directors of the Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bancshares. The court held that the Trustee could pursue her claims only as to the directors' alleged improper subordination of Bancshares' LLC interest. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded the district court's judgment as to that claim, but affirmed its judgment in all other respects. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in granting the directors' motion to dismiss except as to the claim for subordination of the LLC interest of Bancshares. View "Beach First National Bancshare v. Anderson" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff filed this action, asserting claims for, inter alia, breach of contract and violation of the Maryland Credit Grantor Closed End Provisions (CLEC), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law 12-1001 et seq. The district court was persuaded that the National Bank Act (NBA), 12 U.S.C. 24, 484(A), and federal regulations preempted the CLEC, and that plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract. The court held that the district court erred in deeming plaintiff's CLEC claim against Capital One preempted by federal law and regulations where Capital One was subject to the terms of the CLEC in loans it acquired through assignment. The court also held that a breach of contract claim had been adequately pleaded and therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the claim. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Decohen v. Capital One N.A." on Justia Law

by
This appeal involved a regulatory action by the Department of Labor, which suspended various regulations for temporary agricultural workers and reinstated other prior regulations. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that the Department: (1) engaged in "rule making" when reinstating the prior regulations; and (2) failed to comply with the notice and comment procedures mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 501 et seq. The court also concluded that the Department did not invoke the "good cause exception" provided by the APA to excuse its failure to comply with these notice and comment requirements. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in invalidating the Department's action on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious. View "United Farm Workers v. North Carolina Growers' Assoc." on Justia Law

by
Defendant appealed his jury conviction of a Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), and using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Defendant also challenged his sentence. When defendant stole money from the dry cleaners' cash register, depleting an inherently economic enterprise of its assets, the Hobbs Act jurisdictional requirement was satisfied. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction; the district court did not plainly err when delivering the jury instructions; and defendant was properly sentenced as a career offender. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Tillery" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff, individually and as executor of the estate of her husband, appealed the district court's dismissal of her action for wrongful death and loss of consortium under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346. The court concluded that, because adjudication of plaintiff's FTCA claim would not affect the validity of her VA benefits award, the district court did not err in holding that 38 U.S.C. 511 did not preclude the court from making independent findings of fact and conclusions of law in plaintiff's FTCA proceeding. Nor did the district court err in holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact since plaintiff conceded that she would not call any expert witnesses to prove her medical malpractice case, as required by North Carolina law. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Government. View "Butler v. United States" on Justia Law