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

Over thirty-five years ago, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), working with local sponsors, devised a project to provide watershed protection, flood prevention, and recreation along the Lost River Subwatershed. In 1974, the NRCS issued an environmental impact statement relating to the project, and since that time, three dams and most of the land treatment measures have been completed. After preparing a supplemental environmental impact statement in 2009, the NRCS issued a record of decision that eliminated one of the remaining dams from the project and authorized construction of the final dam for the added purpose of providing water supply. Appellants, seven individuals who alleged that their land will be adversely affected by this final dam's construction, filed this action contending that the NRCS failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). They appealed the district court's order granting Appellees' motion for summary judgment. Because the Fourth Circuit determined that the NRCS complied with the procedures mandated by the NEPA and took a hard look at the project's environmental effects, the Court affirmed. View "Webster v. USDA" on Justia Law

The issue presented in this appeal was whether the right recognized in "Padilla v. Kentucky," (130 S. Ct. 1473, 1486 (2010)) is a new right that has been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review so as to enable Defendant-Appellant Shahzad Mathur to file a timely motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate his guilty plea for drug trafficking. When Defendant, an alien residing in the United States, pled guilty in 2007 to conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine in 2008 and received a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, his lawyer failed to advise him of the immigration-related consequences of his plea, such as possible deportation, telling him "not to worry" about such consequences. After pleading guilty, however, the Department of Homeland Security initiated deportation proceedings against Defendant based on his plea. Almost three years after his conviction, the Supreme Court handed down Padilla, and relying on that decision, Defendant filed a section 2255 motion seeking to vacate his plea. The district court denied Defendant's motion, finding it untimely. It concluded that Padilla was not to be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that Defendant's 2255 motion was barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 2255(f). View "United States v. Mathur" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant-Appellant Albert Burgess, Jr. of two felonies involving the receipt and possession of materials depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The district court sentenced Burgess to a term of 292 months' imprisonment, and to supervised release for life. The district court also ordered that Burgess pay, among other things, restitution of $305,219.86 under the Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act for losses suffered by "Vicky," a child victim portrayed in pornographic material in Burgess' possession. Burgess challenged both his convictions and sentences on appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed his convictions and all aspects of his sentences, except the district court's award of restitution to the victim. Because the district court did not make specific findings regarding the elements of restitution, the Court vacated the restitution award and remanded the case to the district court for a calculation of the loss Burgess proximately caused the victim. View "United States v. Burgess" on Justia Law

In this direct appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Fourth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit courts of appeal: in light of the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, codified in Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act ("BAPCPA"), how is the "household" size of a debtor seeking bankruptcy relief to be calculated under Chapter 13. Petitioner Tanya Johnson filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 13; upon receiving notice of Petitioners motion for confirmation of the plan, Petitioner's ex-husband objected because he felt the plan overstated Petitioner's household size and monthly expenses. As a result, the ex-husband maintained that Petitioner's disposable monthly income was insufficient to make payments to two unsecured loans for which he and Petitioner were jointly liable. In examining the parties' dispute, the bankruptcy court observed that the Code does not define "household," there was no binding precedent on point, and that other bankruptcy courts followed three different approaches to define that term. Finding no error in the bankruptcy court's method of calculating the Petitioner's household size based on how many individuals operate as an "economic unit" with the Petitioner, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's order denying the Petitioner's motion for confirmation with leave to amend the Debtor's "disposable income calculation and plan to reflect the household size [of five]." View "Johnson v. Zimmer" on Justia Law

Appellants, eleven inmates in the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections (DOC), brought this action against members of the Virginia Parole Board in their official capacities. The Inmates contended the Board adopted policies and procedures with respect to parole-eligible inmates imprisoned for violent offenses that violated the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution. Most notably, they asserted that the Board implemented an unwritten policy of denying parole to persons incarcerated for violent offenses. The district court granted Appellees' motion to dismiss the complaint, and the Inmates appealed. Because the Fourth Circuit agreed that the complaint failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish a plausible entitlement to relief under either a due process or ex post facto theory, the Court affirmed. View "Burnette v. Fahey" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs James Brooks and Donald Hamlette, corrections officers at the Correctional Unit in Rustburg, Virginia, sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the defendants unlawfully fired them for exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech. "The Supreme Court has been quite clear, . . .that 'complaints about . . . the employee's own duties' that are filed with an employer using an internal grievance procedure . . . do[ ] not relate to a matter of public concern and accordingly 'may give rise to discipline without imposing any special burden of justification on the government employer.'" The Fourth circuit therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the defendants. View "Brooks v. Arthur" on Justia Law

The issue before the Fourth Circuit concerned commercial arbitration of insurance disputes in foreign tribunals. Appellant-Cross-Appellee ESAB Group, Inc. contended that South Carolina law "reverse preempts" federal law (namely, a treaty and its implementing legislation) pursuant to the McCarran-Ferguson Act. ESAB Group faced numerous products liability suits arising from alleged personal injuries caused by exposure to welding consumables manufactured by ESAB Group or its predecessors. These suits presently were proceeding in numerous state and federal courts in the United States. ESAB Group requested that its insurers defend and indemnify it in these suits. Several, including Zurich Insurance, PLC (ZIP), refused coverage. As a result, ESAB Group brought suit against its insurers in South Carolina state court. The district court then found that ZIP had the requisite minimum contacts with the forum to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction and that the exercise of jurisdiction over ZIP was otherwise reasonable. Because it had referred to arbitration all claims providing a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. ESAB Group timely appealed the district court's exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction. ZIP filed a cross-appeal, challenging the district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction and its authority to remand the nonarbitrable claims to state court. Upon review, the Fourth Circuit affirmed as to the district court’s exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction, and found no error in the district court's order compelling arbitration. Likewise, the Court rejected ZIP's arguments that the district court erred in exercising personal jurisdiction over it and in remanding nonarbitrable claims to state court. View "ESAB Group, Incorporated v. Zurich Insurance PLC" on Justia Law

In this case, a group of hourly-wage employees of Perdue Farms, Inc. (Perdue) filed a civil conspiracy action under 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The plaintiffs alleged that certain corporate managers of Perdue, human resources staff, and plant managers conspired to hire aliens not authorized to work in the United States in an effort to reduce labor costs. They asserted that this illegal hiring practice has caused the depression of wages paid to all hourly-wage employees at certain Perdue facilities. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege a civil conspiracy claim upon which relief could be granted. After review, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, and held that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action for civil conspiracy because they did not sufficiently allege a violation of two predicate RICO acts. View "Walters v. McMahen" on Justia Law