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

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, alleging claims of a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to the employer. The court concluded that the totality of the record creates too close a question as to whether her coworkers' behavior created an objectively hostile or abusive work environment to be decided on summary judgment. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on this claim. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff failed to produce evidence creating a triable issue as to whether the employer's proffered explanation for terminating plaintiff was pretext for retaliation and, therefore, affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on this claim. View "Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Egyptian native and citizen, was convicted in Virginia state court of grand larceny under VA. Code Ann. 18.2-95 for taking, stealing, and carrying away two pool cues valued in excess of $200 following a dispute with his opponent in a local pool league. At issue on appeal was whether petitioner's conviction constituted an aggravated felony under section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43). The court concluded that mere use of the disjunctive "or" in the definition of a crime does not automatically render it divisible. The court held that, under the court's recent decisions construing Descamps v. United States, the Virginia crime of larceny is indivisible as a matter of law. Therefore, the court concluded that the modified categorical approach has no role to play in this case and, instead, the categorical approach is applicable. Under the categorical approach, petitioner's grand larceny conviction does not constitute an aggravated felony under the INA. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, reversed the BIA's ruling otherwise, and remanded with instructions to vacate petitioner's order of removal. View "Omargharib v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, physicians and abortion providers, filed suit challenging a North Carolina statute that requires physicians to perform an ultrasound, display the sonogram, and describe the fetus to women seeking abortions. N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-21.85(b). The court concluded that a heightened intermediate level of scrutiny in this case is consistent with Supreme Court precedent and appropriately recognizes the intersection here of regulation of speech and regulation of the medical profession in the context of an abortion procedure. The Display of Real-Time View Requirement is unconstitutional because it interferes with the physician's right to free speech beyond the extent permitted for reasonable regulation of the medical profession, while simultaneously threatening harm to the patient's psychological health, interfering with the physician's professional judgment, and compromising the doctor-patient relationship. Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that section 90-21.85 violates the First Amendment and in enjoining the enforcement of that provision. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Stuart v. Camnitz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Palisades, alleging violations of two provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692f, and related statutes. Plaintiff, a credit card debtor, claimed that after Palisades purportedly purchased a judgment that had been entered against her in state court, it filed an Assignment of Judgment in the action that falsely represented its ownership of the judgment and misrepresented the amount she owed. The court concluded that the filing of an assignment of judgment in a debt collection act qualifies as debt collection activity that triggers the protections of the FDCPA; that the Assignment of Judgment that Palisades filed against plaintiff did not falsey claim Palisades' ownership of the judgment; and that the misrepresentations in the Assignment of Judgment as to the amount of the judgment and the amount of plaintiff's payments on the judgment were material. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment entered on plaintiff's FDCPA claim under section 1692e and remanded the claim. The court vacated the court's conditional ruling that the errors made in the Assignment of Judgment did not provide a basis for the "bona fide error defense" found in section 1692k(c). Finally, the court affirmed the judgment entered on plaintiff's section 1692f claim and her state-law claims. View "Powell v. Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against prison doctors and medical staff, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court concluded that plaintiff did not appeal from the district court order dismissing the staff as a party to this case, depriving the court of jurisdiction to review this order. However, the court has jurisdiction over the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the doctors. The court held that while the claim against Dr. Lightsey was properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), plaintiff has alleged facts supporting a plausible claim of deliberate indifference against Dr. Guleria where plaintiff alleged that Dr. Guleria failed to enter the orders necessary to provide him with the promised care. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim against Dr. Guleria and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Lightsey" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of powder cocaine, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition for collateral relief. The court rejected petitioner's claim that he received ineffective assistance because counsel declined to raise an Equal Protection claim of racially selective law enforcement where petitioner's counsel, by choosing to pursue a Fourth Amendment claim, acted effectively under Strickland v. Washington. The court also rejected petitioner's contention that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing to evaluate whether counsel were ineffective for failing to raise an Equal Protection claim. Further, counsel was not ineffective by failing to properly challenge the use of petitioner's post-arrest silence in the prosecutor's closing remarks. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mason" on Justia Law

Sanya recruited restaurant employees to steal customers’ credit card information, using a device that he provided. With the stolen information, Sanya made counterfeit credit cards, which co-conspirators used to purchase gift cards that were used to buy consumer goods. Co-conspirators returned the goods for cash. In 2012, Sanya pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit access-device fraud, was released pending sentencing, and resumed his fraud scheme. He was charged with state crimes, then transferred to federal custody; state charges were dismissed. In 2013, Sanya was indicted for access-device fraud and aggravated identity theft. Sanya’s sentencing for the 2012 plea was postponed, but the parties failed to reach agreement. The district judge expressed his strong preference that Sanya enter a plea to the second set of charges and agree to have all charges consolidated for sentencing. Days later, Sanya pleaded guilty. The charges were consolidated and the same district judge sentenced Sanya to a total of 212 months’ imprisonment. Sanya argued that the district court improperly participated in plea discussions, rendering his second plea invalid. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded for assignment to a different judge. View "United States v. Sanya" on Justia Law

The Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County, Virginia met twice per month. At the beginning of each meeting, a member of the Board opened the proceedings with an invocation, usually explicitly Christian in nature, and asked the audience to stand for the prayers. Hudson is a non-Christian resident of Pittsylvania County who has attended nearly every Board meeting and alleges that the Christian prayers made her and other non-Christian citizens of Pittsylvania County feel unwelcome. Hudson filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging violation of the Establishment Clause. The district court entered summary judgment for Hudson and permanently enjoined Pittsylvania “from repeatedly opening its meetings with prayers associated with any one religion,” and struck the case from the active docket while retaining jurisdiction. Hudson sought attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $59,679.92.1. A magistrate judge recommended an award of $53,229.92 and the district court adopted the recommendation. Pittsylvania filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), 175 days after the court entered its order. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the merits appeal as untimely and affirmed the award of fees. View "Hudson v. Pittsylvania Cnty, Va." on Justia Law

A magistrate judge in the District of Columbia determined that petitioner, a Mexican citizen, was extraditable under the Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, U.S. - Mex., May 4, 1978, 31 U.S.T. 5059. Petitioner owned and operated pharmaceutical businesses in and around Mexico City that illegaly imported psychotropic substances into Mexico. On appeal, petitioner claimed that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to conduct the extradition proceeding and that the Treaty bars his extradition. The court found no merit in petitioner's claim that the fact that he was moved from Maryland to the District of Columbia against his will precludes the D.C. Magistrate from exercising jurisdiction over him where, under the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, a defendant's involuntary presence in a court is not a bar to personal jurisdiction. Further, when construing other jurisdiction and venue statutes concerning foreign nationals that, like 18 U.S.C. 3184, require a defendant to be "found in" a place, the court has held that this "found in" requirement is satisfied even when the defendant is brought there against his will. The court rejected petitioner's argument that the Treaty's Non Bis In Idem provision in Article 6 bars his extradition where the court declined to follow Sindona v. Grant's "same conduct" framework, and adopted the Blockburger v. United States' "same elements" test as the proper mode of analysis. The court rejected petitioner's remaining claims regarding the Treaty's dual criminality provision in Article 2 and rule of specialty provision in Article 17. The court affirmed the denial of petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. View "Gon v. Holt" on Justia Law

Petitioners donated a conservation easement to a land trust and claimed a $10,524,000 charitable deduction for the asserted value. The Tax Court held that the easement did not qualify as a charitable contribution and petitioners were not entitled to the deduction. The Tax Code and Treasury Regulations together make clear that 26 U.S.C. 170(h)(2)(C) means that a charitable deduction may be claimed for the donation of a conservation easement only when that easement restricts the use of the donated property in perpetuity. In this case, because the easement fails to meet this requirement, it is ineligible to form the basis of a charitable deduction under section 170(h)(2)(C). The court rejected petitioners' contention that the court should reject this straightforward application of statutory text and affirmed the judgment. View "Belk, Jr. v. CIR" on Justia Law