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

Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, sought discretionary relief from his removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111, Stat. 2160, 2198. The BIA found petitioner ineligible for relief because he was unable to demonstrate that his 1996 Virginia conviction for assault and battery was not a crime of violence. The court concluded that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996's, 8 U.S.C. 321(c), retroactive application of the revised definition of "aggravated felony" survived petitioner's constitutional challenges. The court also held that the government had demonstrated that petitioner's removability and petitioner had failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for discretionary relief from removal, as afforded by NACARA. Accordingly, the court denied his petitions for review. View "Mondragon v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Bethel brought this action asserting that the County's zoning regulations, which prevented Bethel from constructing a church, violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., the United States Constitution, and the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the County on all claims. The court concluded that the County had presented no evidence that its interest in preserving the integrity of the rural density transfer zone could not be served by less restrictive means, like a minimum lot-size requirement or an individualized review process. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the County on Bethel's substantial burden claim. The court affirmed in all other respects and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery County Council" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants. Plaintiff is a pre-operative transsexual suffering from a diagnosed and severe form of a rare, medically recognized illness known as gender identity disorder (GID). She alleged that, in light of defendants' knowledge of her ongoing risk of self-mutilation, defendants' continued denial of consideration for sex reassignment surgery constituted deliberate indifference to her serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff's complaint stated a claim for relief that was plausible on its face and therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "De'Lonta v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a permanent resident alien and federal inmate, appealed the dismissal of his action under 8 U.S.C. 1503(a) for a judgment declaring him a United States national. Petitioner has resided in the United States since the age of eleven and has been a permanent resident for almost twenty-five years. Petitioner alleged that he was a United States national because he applied for citizenship, registered for the Selective Service, and declared his permanent allegiance to various United States officials. The court held that these facts failed to allege United States nationality under section 1503(a) and affirmed the dismissal of his action. Petitioner could not state a claim to be a United States national under United States v. Morin because the court must defer to the BIA's contrary, post-Morin interpretation of section 1101(a)(22). View "Patel v. Napolitano" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of child rape and other related crimes, sought state post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial lawyers denied him effective assistance of counsel in failing to notify him of, or counsel him about, a pre-trial plea offer. After conducting evidentiary hearings, the state court refused to grant him post-conviction relief. Petitioner then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court and that court granted the petition. Under the deferential standard the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254, required, the court was unable to disrupt the state court's finding that it was not reasonably probable that such a plea would have been entered here. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Merzbacher v. Shearin, et al" on Justia Law

This case involved the 18 U.S.C. 2703(d) orders pertaining to the Government's request for records of electronic communications relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The underlying facts of the investigation related to the unauthorized release of classified documents to WikiLeaks.org, and the alleged involvement of a U.S. Army Private First Class. At issue was the public's right to access orders issued under section 2703(d) and related documents at the pre-grand jury phase of an ongoing criminal investigation. Because the court found that there was no First Amendment right to access such documents, and the common law right to access such documents was presently outweighed by countervailing interests, the court denied the request for relief. View "In re: 2703(d) Application" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the Richmond International Airport and TSA agents, alleging violations of his constitutional rights when he was seized and arrested for displaying the text of the Fourth Amendment on his chest. The district court denied the TSA agents' motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim and the TSA agents appealed. Because the court found that the facts as alleged by plaintiff plausibly set forth a claim that the TSA agents violated his clearly established First Amendment rights, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Tobey v. Jones" on Justia Law

This case involved the constitutionality of the North Carolina "Woman's Right to Know Act," N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-21.80 to -21.92, a statute that required certain informed consent procedures prior to the performance of an abortion. Appellants - a group of pro-life medical professionals, women who have previously undergone abortions, and pregnancy counseling centers - filed a motion to intervene as defendants in the suit. The court affirmed the district court's denial of appellants' motion to intervene as of right based on its finding that the Attorney General was adequately representing their interests. The court held that the putative intervenor must mount a strong showing of inadequacy. In this instance, both the government agency and the would-be intervenors wanted the statute to be constitutionally sustained. The court also held that the district court did not err in concluding that appellants failed to establish adversity of interest with the Attorney General and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting appellants' claim of nonfeasance by the Attorney General. View "Stuart v. Huff" on Justia Law

Carilion initiated an arbitration proceeding against UBS and Citi under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) Rule 12200, which required FINRA members to arbitrate disputes with a customer at the customer's request. UBS and Citi commenced this action to enjoin the arbitration proceedings, contending that Carilion was not a "customer" as that term was used in FINRA Rule 12200 and that, in any event, Carilion waived any right to arbitrate by agreeing to the forum selection clause contained in written agreements with UBS and Citi. The court concluded that Carilion, by purchasing UBS and Citi's services, was indeed a "customer" entitled to arbitration under FINRA Rule 12200 and that the forum selection clause did not have the effect of superseding or waiving Carilion's right to arbitrate. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of UBS and Citi's motion for injunctive relief. View "UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Carilion Clinic" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for crimes related to his involvement in an investment scheme which resulted in nearly $100 million dollars in losses for investors. The court held that defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated where the government limited its case to events occurring while defendant was an owner of A&O to simply prove a more narrow conspiracy than was charged in the superseding indictment. Because the conspiracy proven was within the scope of those alleged in the unredacted indictment, the narrowing at most created a non-fatal variance. Finally, the court rejected defendant's claims that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Allmendinger" on Justia Law