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

Christine Sugar filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the Eastern District of North Carolina in September 2019. Her confirmed bankruptcy plan required her to make monthly payments and prohibited the sale of non-exempt property valued over $10,000 without court approval. Despite this, Sugar sold her residence without obtaining prior court authorization, believing it was fully exempt based on her attorney's advice. The sale resulted in proceeds of approximately $94,000.The bankruptcy court found that Sugar's sale of her residence violated the confirmed plan and the local bankruptcy rule. The court dismissed her Chapter 13 case and barred her from filing another bankruptcy application for five years. Additionally, the court imposed monetary sanctions on her attorney, Travis P. Sasser, for advising her incorrectly and for his conduct during the proceedings.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina affirmed the bankruptcy court's findings and sanctions. Sugar and Sasser appealed the decision, arguing that the local rule was invalid, the property was exempt, and that paying off the plan balance entitled Sugar to immediate discharge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's determination that Sugar violated the local rule by selling her residence without prior court approval. However, it vacated the judgment dismissing Sugar's Chapter 13 case and the five-year filing bar, remanding the case for the bankruptcy court to consider the effect of Sugar's reliance on her attorney's advice. The court affirmed the monetary sanctions against Sasser, finding that his advice and conduct warranted the penalties imposed. View "Sugar v. Burnett" on Justia Law

A father, Scott Williams, and his son, Taeyan Williams, were convicted by a federal jury of various drug-related offenses, including conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine. The case stemmed from an investigation into the disappearance of a drug dealer, Noah Smothers, who supplied drugs to Scott and Taeyan. A search of Scott's home revealed large quantities of drugs, firearms, and cash. Both Scott and Taeyan were found guilty of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, while Scott was also convicted of additional charges related to methamphetamine and evidence destruction.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied Scott's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search, despite his claim that law enforcement failed to knock and announce before entering. The court held that suppression was not the appropriate remedy. Scott and Taeyan were sentenced to 276 months and 150 months in prison, respectively, followed by five years of supervised release. Both appealed their convictions and sentences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Taeyan's conviction, finding sufficient evidence to support his possession with intent to distribute charges, based on his connection to the drugs found in Scott's home. The court also upheld the district court's denial of Scott's motion to suppress, citing exigent circumstances that justified the no-knock entry. Additionally, the court rejected Scott's request for a sentence reduction under the newly promulgated U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, advising him to seek relief through a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Finally, the court found no improper delegation of judicial authority in the conditions of Scott's supervised release, affirming the district court's judgments in their entirety. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Police officers responded to a noise complaint at a house party in Sanford, North Carolina, on September 12, 2021. They heard gunshots and saw the defendant, Chad Marques Jennings, run to a van and speed away. After a chase, officers detained Jennings, who admitted to having a gun in his waistband. Bullet casings found at the scene matched Jennings' gun. Jennings, a convicted felon, was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and pled guilty.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina held a sentencing hearing where Jennings' attorney spoke, and Jennings was invited to address the court. Jennings spoke about his struggles with alcoholism, read a poem, and a prepared speech. The court interrupted Jennings twice with questions and later prevented him from reading a letter to his mother, focusing instead on questioning him about his criminal history. The court sentenced Jennings to the statutory maximum of 120 months, citing the seriousness of the offense and his criminal history. Jennings appealed, arguing that the court denied him the full exercise of his allocution right.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in its handling of Jennings' allocution. The court found that the district court's interruptions were permissible clarifying questions and that the exclusion of the letter to Jennings' mother was within the court's discretion to limit irrelevant or repetitive information. The court concluded that Jennings was given a reasonable opportunity for allocution and affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence. View "United States v. Jennings" on Justia Law

Several property management companies advertised their apartment buildings on Facebook, targeting users who are 50 years old or younger. Neuhtah Opiotennione, who is older than 50, did not see these advertisements and claimed that the companies discriminated against her based on her age. She filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction, and damages.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed Opiotennione’s complaint, ruling that she lacked standing to sue because she had not suffered a concrete and particularized injury in fact. The court found that Opiotennione had not demonstrated how the alleged discrimination personally affected her.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Opiotennione failed to allege a concrete and particularized injury in fact. The court noted that merely being a member of the disfavored age group did not constitute a particularized injury. Additionally, the court found that Opiotennione did not allege that she was personally denied information or housing opportunities by the defendants, as she had not actively sought information from them. The court also rejected her claims of informational and stigmatic injuries, concluding that she had not demonstrated a personal denial of information or a concrete stigmatic injury. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case for lack of standing. View "Opiotennione v. Bozzuto Management Co." on Justia Law

Jason Wayne Gowen, a pretrial detainee at the Lynchburg Adult Detention Center, was placed in solitary confinement for 125 days after complaining about hot conditions in his cell and encouraging other inmates to do the same. Gowen filed a lawsuit against several correctional officers, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights due to retaliation for his grievances and his Fourteenth Amendment rights for being placed in solitary confinement without due process.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Gowen’s First Amendment retaliation claim, stating that he failed to show a causal connection between his grievances and the adverse actions taken against him. The court later granted summary judgment to the officers on Gowen’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, concluding that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Gowen adequately alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim by showing that he engaged in protected activity, faced adverse action, and established a causal connection through temporal proximity and the officers' awareness of his grievances. The court also determined that Gowen did not forfeit his argument regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies, as his verified complaint contained sufficient evidence of his attempts to use the grievance process and the officers' failure to respond.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Gowen’s First Amendment retaliation claim and vacated the summary judgment on his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s findings. View "Gowen v. Winfield" on Justia Law

Jason and Kacie Highsmith hired Shelter, LLC to manage a home renovation project and later contracted with Design Gaps, Inc. to design and install cabinets and closets. The contracts required arbitration for disputes but did not specify completion dates. Design Gaps failed to meet multiple promised deadlines, leading the Highsmiths to terminate the contracts and hire another company. The Highsmiths shared Design Gaps' copyrighted drawings with the new contractor. They then filed for arbitration, alleging breach of contract and other claims, while Design Gaps counterclaimed for various issues, including copyright infringement.The arbitrator held a three-day hearing, during which the Highsmiths presented multiple witnesses, while Design Gaps only presented David Glover. The arbitrator found in favor of the Highsmiths, awarding them damages and attorney’s fees, and denied Design Gaps' counterclaims, including the copyright claim, citing fair use and lack of evidence for copyright registration.Design Gaps petitioned the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina to vacate the arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator disregarded the law and failed to issue a reasoned award. The district court denied the petition and confirmed the arbitration award, also granting the Highsmiths' motion for attorney’s fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the appeal, citing lack of federal jurisdiction based on the precedent set in Friedler v. Stifel, Nicolaus, & Co., which held that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over motions to vacate arbitration awards unless there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction beyond the Federal Arbitration Act. The court concluded that the petition did not meet this requirement. View "Design Gaps, Inc. v. Shelter, LLC" on Justia Law

Rhonda and Robert Notgrass fraudulently obtained benefits from the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program by falsely claiming unemployment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Robert, a minister, and Rhonda, his wife, were ineligible for these benefits as Robert was fired for reasons unrelated to the pandemic, and Rhonda had not lost her job. They both pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and were sentenced to probation by the district court.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia sentenced the Notgrasses to five years of probation, including several conditions. The Notgrasses appealed four of these conditions: obtaining permission before leaving their judicial district, prohibition on possessing dangerous weapons, registering with an unemployment agency, and Robert's participation in a supervised mental-health treatment program. They argued that these conditions were both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court first determined that the Notgrasses' appellate waiver did not cover challenges to probation conditions, allowing the appeal to proceed. On the merits, the court found that the district court had adequately explained the conditions in light of the Notgrasses' objections. The travel-permission and weapons prohibition conditions were standard and self-evident, while the unemployment registration and mental-health treatment conditions were tailored to the Notgrasses' specific circumstances. The court held that all four conditions were reasonably related to the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and were not an abuse of discretion.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentences, finding the probation conditions both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "US v. Notgrass" on Justia Law

William Davis Jr. was arrested for reckless driving after police observed him using a handheld device while driving. During the arrest, officers discovered a firearm hidden in his waistband. Davis, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court varied upward from the Sentencing Guidelines range of 21 to 27 months and imposed a sentence of 72 months. Davis appealed, arguing that the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia initially calculated Davis's Sentencing Guidelines range as 57 to 71 months, based on a base offense level of 24 due to his prior felony convictions for controlled substance offenses. However, the court later applied the categorical approach from United States v. Campbell, which led to a recalculated base offense level of 14 and a revised Guidelines range of 21 to 27 months. Despite this, the district court granted the government's motion for an upward variance, citing Davis's extensive criminal history and the seriousness of his offense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the district court had conducted an individualized assessment of the facts and arguments, adequately explained its reasoning, and properly considered the § 3553(a) factors. The court emphasized that the district court's findings regarding the seriousness of Davis's offense and his extensive criminal history justified the upward variance. The appellate court concluded that the 72-month sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "US v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, business entities owning recovery rights assigned by health insurers and other third-party Medicare payors, alleged that Defendants, including a drug manufacturer, a specialty pharmacy, and healthcare nonprofits, colluded to inflate the price and quantity of the drug Xenazine. This alleged scheme purportedly violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various state laws, causing the Assignors to reimburse inflated Xenazine prescriptions at supra-competitive prices.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the class-action complaint with prejudice, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that Defendants’ conduct proximately caused their injuries. The court emphasized that RICO’s proximate-causation requirement focuses on the directness of the harm, not its foreseeability. The court found the alleged causal chain too attenuated, involving numerous independent actors like physicians and pharmacists, and dismissed the state-law claims for similar reasons.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the federal RICO claims, agreeing that Plaintiffs failed to establish proximate causation. The court noted that the alleged scheme had more direct victims, such as distributors and wholesalers, and that the volume of Xenazine prescriptions depended on the independent decisions of doctors. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the state-law consumer-protection and unjust-enrichment claims, finding them insufficiently pleaded.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs had standing to bring claims on behalf of unidentified assignors, remanding those claims for dismissal without prejudice. The court upheld the district court’s denial of post-judgment relief and leave to amend the complaint, concluding that further amendment would be futile. View "MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Lundbeck LLC" on Justia Law

In the early morning of November 1, 2019, a group of law enforcement officers, including Task Force Officer (TFO) Clarence Belton and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer Heather Loveridge, attempted to execute a search warrant at the house of a suspect, Larry McConneyhead, in Charlotte, North Carolina. During the operation, McConneyhead fled into his house, and a confrontation ensued. TFO Belton was accidentally shot by Officer Loveridge, who mistook him for the suspect. Belton suffered severe injuries, leading to multiple surgeries and permanent disability.The case was initially filed in North Carolina state court and then removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Belton alleged excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several state law claims against Officer Loveridge and the City of Charlotte. Officer Loveridge moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity for the federal claim and public officers’ immunity for the state claims. The district court denied her motion, citing genuine disputes of material fact regarding the circumstances of the shooting.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court failed to conduct the proper analysis for determining qualified immunity, which requires identifying the specific constitutional right violated and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to apply the correct legal standards for qualified immunity and public officers’ immunity. View "Belton v. Loveridge" on Justia Law