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

Plaintiff, a Sunni Muslim currently incarcerated in a state correctional facility, brought this action alleging that prison officials violated the Religions Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., by refusing to permit him to grow a one-eighth-inch beard in compliance with the requirements of his faith. Because the prison officials did not explain how a one-eighth-inch beard would implicate health or security concerns, they failed to satisfy their burden under RLUIPA of showing that the general grooming policy that they relied upon was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Accordingly, the court vacated the grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Couch v. Jabe" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of controlled substances. Defendant moved to suppress the gun and marijuana and subsequent statements to the police, alleging that the officers had illegally seized him when a detective asked him first to lift his shirt and then submit to a pat down search. The court held that, because a reasonable person in defendant's position would not have felt free to terminate the initial encounter with the officers, the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress was reversed. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of ammunition by a felon. Defendant had entered a "no-contest" plea to a robbery charge in a prior, related prosecution in state court. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court committed procedural sentencing error because insufficient evidence supported the cross-reference to the robbery guideline. The court concluded that, although the Government could have presented sufficient evidence to support the cross-reference to the robbery guideline, the district court failed to resolve critical disputed issues of fact necessary to its application of the Advisory Sentencing Guidelines and the court's appellate review thereof. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the judgment of the district court granting a motion for reduction of his sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). At issue was whether the district court erred in considering factors other than defendant's cooperation with police when determining the extent of a sentence reduction following the grant of the Rule 35(b) motion. The court concluded that the district court had full authority under Rule 35(b) and correctly considered factors other than the substantial assistance, such as defendant's criminal history, the violent nature of the crime of conviction, and the significant reduction defendant had already received to his advisory Guidelines range. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to traffic in more than 50 grams of crack cocaine and on three counts of distributing crack cocaine. On appeal, defendant contended that while the evidence could have supported a finding of his involvement in simple buyer-seller drug transactions, it did not support a finding that he participated in any conspiracy. Defendant also raised challenges against his sentence. The court held that a rational jury could find defendant guilty of participating in a conspiracy between him and a government informant during the period that the informant was not making controlled purchases for the government. Further, the court could not conclude that the record supported defendant's claim that the district court did not adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in reaching its sentencing decision. The court also rejected defendant's contention that his sentence was improperly enhanced under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Edmonds" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the dispute between Meyer and Belk regarding the design, creation, marketing, and profitability of high-end cookware. At the conclusion of trial, the district court entered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict in favor of Meyer on its claims of trade dress infringement and unfair and deceptive trade practices. On appeal, Belk asserted that the district court erred in numerous respects, including its failure to recognize the sufficiency of the evidence to support Meyer's claims and other errors relating to evidentiary and legal rulings. The court held that Belk's failure to move pursuant to Rule 50(b) forfeited the sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal. Finding no error on the issues that were properly preserved, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., U.S." on Justia Law

In 2010, appellants unsuccessfully sought to enjoin the implementation of the 2011-2012 student assignment plan by the school board. On appeal, appellants argued that the district court committed legal error by failing to apply, and requiring the school board to rebut, a presumption that racial disparities in the 2011-2012 assignment plan resulted from the school board's prior unconstitutional conduct in operating a racially segregated school district. The court agreed and therefore vacated the district court's order and remanded for reconsideration. View "Everett v. Pitt Cty. Brd. of Educ." on Justia Law

A federal grand jury indicted defendant on one count of possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. Defendant moved before trial to suppress the firearm, arguing that the police seized it in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court agreed and the government appealed. In a threatening domestic situation, with information that at least a special needs child was in the home, the officers conducted a properly circumscribed protective sweep, which yielded the discovery of a firearm as that sweep continued. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order granting the suppression motion where the police officers' actions in this case were consistent with the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Laudermilt" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of their claim that Deutsche and others violated various consumer protection laws in connection with a mortgage plaintiffs secured on their home. Plaintiffs alleged that they were entitled to relief on account of violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601-1667(f), and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 1026; North Carolina usury law, N.C. Gen. State 24; the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NCUDTPA), N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1; and North Carolina's Prohibited Acts by Debt Collectors statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-50. Plaintiffs also claimed a breach of contract and that Deutsche lacked the authority to enforce the loan. The court held that plaintiffs' TILA claim was not time-barred; plaintiffs adequately pled the elements of their usury claim and the claim was ripe for adjudication; similarly, plaintiffs' NCUDTPA claims should also be allowed to proceed; res judicata no longer barred plaintiffs from litigating whether Deutsche had authority to enforce the note; and plaintiff's contention that the district court erred in denying their motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e) was moot. View "Gilbert, Jr., et al. v. Residential Funding LLC, et al." on Justia Law

After the Agencies approved the construction of a new 20-mile toll road in North Carolina, the Conservation Groups filed suit, seeking to enjoin construction on the toll road, contending that the process by which the Agencies approved the road violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to the Agencies. Because the Agencies failed to disclose critical assumptions underlying their decision to build the road and instead provided the public with incorrect information, they did indeed violate NEPA. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Carolina Wildlife, et al. v. North Carolina Dept. of Transp., et al." on Justia Law