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

Defendant appealed from two counts of theft of public money and one count of committing acts affecting a personal financial interest. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss where it properly exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over him. The court also held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his post-arrest statements to FBI and DOS agents. The court further held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions on the two counts of theft of public money. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ayesh" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter during the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony. The underlying unlawful act was an alleged violation of 36 C.F.R. 4.23(a)(2), which provided that "[o]perating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is prohibited while . . . [t]he alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood[.]" The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the toxicologist's generic testimony on alcohol metabolization. Nor was defendant entitled to judgment of acquittal because the government's evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's proposed jury instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

These appeals arose from allegations that the City of Durham and its officials mishandled false rape charges made against members of the 2005-2006 Duke University lacrosse team. The City and its officials asserted various immunities from suit and on that basis moved to dismiss, or for summary judgment, as to all claims alleged against them. The district court granted those motions in part and denied them in part. The City and its officials appealed. The court reversed the district court's denial of all defendants' motions to dismiss the federal claims alleged against them; reversed the denial of the City's motion for summary judgment as to the state common-law claims alleged against it; affirmed the denial of Officer Gottlieb and Himan's motions to dismiss the state common-law malicious prosecution claims alleged against them; reversed the denial of the officers' motions to dismiss all other state common-law claims; dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction the City's appeal of the state constitutional claims alleged against it; and remanded the cases for further proceedings. View "Evans v. Chalmers" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Mexico, was indicted for possessing firearms while being illegally or unlawfully in the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge, contending that section 922(g)(5) violated his rights under the Second and Fifth Amendments. The district court denied the motion, holding that section 922(g)(5) was constitutional. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the scope of the Second Amendment did not extend to provide protection to illegal aliens, because illegal aliens were not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance. On defendant's Fifth Amendment challenge, the court concluded that prohibiting aliens, as a class, from possessing firearms was rationally related to Congress' legitimate interest in public safety. View "United States v. Carpio-Leon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the court's denial of his attempt to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, contending that his prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim could not count as strikes under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), because the dismissals occurred at summary judgment. The court held that the fact that an action was dismissed for these reasons, and not the case's procedural posture at dismissal, determined whether the dismissal constituted a strike under Section 1915(g). Therefore, because defendant had more than three prior cases dismissed, the court denied his motion for reconsideration. View "Blakely v. Wards" on Justia Law

Ashland Facility petitioned for review of the Board's order that Ashland Facility cease and desist from refusing to bargain with the Union. Ashland Facility contended on appeal that allegedly racially inflammatory remarks by an executive of the Virginia State Conference NAACP undermined the validity of a representation election certifying the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain Ashland Facility employees. The court concluded that the Board correctly found that even if the Virginia NAACP had been an agent of the Union, the executive's prepetition statements did not provide a basis for setting aside the election. Because the court concluded that the Union was properly certified, the court denied Ashland Facility's petition for review and enforced the Board's order. View "Ashland Facility Operations v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of federal program bribery and extortion under color of official night. The convictions arose from charges that, while a state legislator, defendant secured state funding for a public university in exchange for employment by the university. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict defendant; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury as to a gratuity; and the district court did not plainly err in its application of a fourteen-level sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Defendants Jacqueline, Tamatha, and Jimmy Hilton challenged their convictions on charges involving a scheme to defraud the Woodsmiths Company. The charges in this case arose from a two-year scheme in which defendants defrauded the company by stealing and cashing numerous checks written to the company by its customers. At issue was whether the statutes prohibiting identity theft and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(7) and 1028A, under which Jimmy and Jacqueline were convicted, encompassed the theft of the identity of a corporation. The court held that these statutes were fairly ambiguous regarding whether corporate victims were within the class of protected victims and vacated the conviction of Jimmy and Jacqueline on these counts. The court concluded that defendants' other arguments were without merit and therefore affirmed Tamatha's convictions, affirmed the remaining convictions of Jacqueline and Jimmy, but vacated the sentences imposed and remand those convictions for resentencing. View "United States v. Hilton, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry by an aggravated felon. At issue was whether the district court properly counted defendant's prior conviction for a violation of California Penal Code 422(a) as a crime of violence, justifying a sentencing enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. Section 422(a) prohibited, as a felony, willfully threatening to commit a crime that would result in death or great bodily injury. The court held that the predicate state statute was not, categorically, a crime of violence where section 422(a) did not contain an element requiring the use or threatened use of physical force. Therefore, defendant's sentencing enhancement could not stand. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Torres-Miguel" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of violating a provision of the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. 2156, based on his involvement in dogfighting activity. On appeal, defendant challenged his 60-month sentence. The court concluded that the district court's exercise of its sentencing discretion was not unreasonable where the district court conducted a thorough individualized assessment of defendant and his offense conduct in light of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Hargrove" on Justia Law