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

Plaintiff, presently incarcerated due to his conviction after trial for federal crimes of terrorism, and his mother, sued for legal and equitable relief based on plaintiff's prior military detention as an "enemy combatant." Plaintiff sought a declaration that defendants' policies were unconstitutional, an order enjoining his future designation as an enemy combatant, and nominal damages of one dollar from each defendant. The court affirmed the district court's refusal to imply a new cause of action for money damages against top Defense Department officials for a range of policy judgments pertaining to the designation and treatment of enemy combatants. The court also held that defendants have asserted a valid qualified immunity defense to defendant's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., claim. The court further held that the district court did not err in concluding that defendant lacked standing to seek an order enjoining the government from designating him as an enemy combatant. Therefore, finding plaintiff's claims to be without merit, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lebron, et al. v. Rumsfeld, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for attempted enticement, receipt of child pornography, and possession of child pornography. At issue was whether the district court properly applied two five-level enhancements and whether defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. The court held that for purposes of the U.S.S.G. 2G2.2 enhancement, the term "minor" could include an unidentified individual, provided that evidence showed the individual would be under 18 years of age. Accordingly, defendant's failure to identify a specific child at the outset did not diminish his danger to children or his first-hand involvement in the exploitation of the minor. Because the district court followed the reasoning of the Eighth Circuit regarding an issue on which the court had not ruled directly, - i.e., whether a district court could appropriately apply a five-level enhancement for sharing files through a PSP network - it did not commit plain error. Therefore, the court declined to reverse the application of the enhancement. The court further held that the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered and properly weighed all relevant factors in determining defendant's sentence, the sentence was within the Guidelines range, and in light of the fact that defendant possessed particularly violent pornographic materials of very young children combined with the direct threat he posed. View "United States v. Strieper" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of marijuana, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3). At issue was whether defendant's section 922(g)(3) conviction violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Although the court concluded, by applying the intermediate scrutiny standard, that Congress had an important objective for enacting section 922(g)(3) to reduce gun violence and might have reasonably served that objective by disarming drug users and addicts, the court nonetheless found that the government failed to make the record to substantiate the fit between its objectives and the means of serving that objective. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a racial discrimination action under Title VII in a North Carolina state court, naming the Secretary as a defendant. The Secretary removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a) and then filed a motion to dismiss. The court concluded that because the United States and the Secretary did not consent to be sued in a North Carolina state court under Title VII, the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Inasmuch as removal to the federal court, under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction, did not cure that jurisdictional defect, the court affirmed the district court's order. View "Bullock v. Napolitano" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on the charge of possessing a firearm while being a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Defendant, an African American, moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that the U.S. Attorney's Office selected him for prosecution under a federal-state law enforcement initiative known as Project Exile because of his race, in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. On appeal, defendant requested that the court reverse the district court's order denying his motion for discovery and remand the case for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. The court held that defendant failed to make a credible showing that a similarly situated defendant of another race had evaded prosecution under Project Exile in order to obtain discovery on his selective prosecution claim and that defendant had failed to carry his burden of producing some evidence to make a credible showing of both discriminatory effect and intent. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Venable" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of nine criminal counts related to his membership in the gang Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). Defendant appealed, among other things, his convictions under 18 U.S.C. 1512(a)(1)(C) for aiding and abetting witness-tampering murder. The court held that, although the district court based its section 1512(a)(1)(C) jury instructions on the court's decision in United States v. Harris which - while this appeal was pending - was abrogated by the Supreme Court's decision in Fowler v. United States, the court concluded that the error in instructing the jury was harmless. Finding no error in regards to defendant's remaining claims, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Ramos-Cruz" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Defendant subsequently challenged the district court's jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e) to impose a second prison sentence for violations of his supervised release after the district court effectively revoked his supervised release and imposed a prison sentence in a prior hearing. The court affirmed and held that the district court had jurisdiction to hold the September 17 violation hearing and to impose the 12 month sentence for supervised-release violations arising from defendant's state convictions. View "United States v. Winfield" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's decision to abstain, on the basis of Schlesinger v. Councilman, and dismiss without prejudice his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the U.S. Army's exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over him. The court held that the district court was well within its discretion in applying Councilman abstention and dismissing without prejudice petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court remanded, however, for correction of an error in the judgment because, although the district court applied Councilman abstention and dismissed the petition without prejudice, the judgment erroneously indicated that the district court granted the Army's summary judgment motion on the merits. View "Hennis v. Hemlick, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of its civil action brought against defendants for alleged Fourth Amendment violations in conjunction with warrantless searches of plaintiff's mining facility. From December 2007 to June 2008, defendants conducted approximately 25 warrantless inspections of plaintiff's mining operation after receiving anonymous tips that the mine was not in compliance with Virginia regulations. The court held that Virginia's Mineral Mine Safety Act, Va. Code Ann. 45.1-161.292:54(B), was constitutional under the New York v. Burger test; there was no Fourth Amendment violation where the searches were objectively supported by multiple complaints to which the inspectors were responding and there was no indication that the inspections were pretext for harassment or other improper conduct; Virginia Code 19.2-59 must be interpreted not to apply to the type of searches at issue here; and having found no constitutional violation, the court concluded that defendants were protected by qualified immunity. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "LeSueur-Richmond Slate Corp. v. Fehrer" on Justia Law

Defendants, husband and wife, appealed their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and dispense, and to possess with intent to distribute and dispense, methamphetamine. On appeal, defendants contended that the protective sweep of their residence was unconstitutional and husband contended, separately, that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable. The court held that the articulable facts, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts made by law officers, and construed in the light most favorable to the government, were more than sufficient to justify the protective sweep. The court held, however, that husband's prior North Carolina conviction was not a predicate offense and therefore, did not qualify as a prior felony conviction for purposes of the career offender provision. Accordingly, the court vacated husband's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States. v. Jones; United States v. Jones" on Justia Law