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

Defendant appealed from convictions arising from his attempt to leave the United States carrying approximately $40,000 in United States currency, without reporting the currency to customs authorities. In denying his motion for a new trial, the district court acknowledged that it had erred in excluding certain testimony at defendant's trial, but concluded that the error was harmless. Because the court could not say, with fair assurance, that the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the jury verdict, the court must vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings. View "United States v. Ibisevic" on Justia Law

In this case, a subcontractor to a subcontractor to a prime contractor with a federal agency brought a procedural due process claim against that agency and tort actions against a separate contractor for allegedly causing the termination of his at-will consulting agreement. The court concluded that plaintiff's case involved both the wrong defendants and the wrong claims. Because permitting these claims to go forward would reward artful pleading and impermissibly constitutionalize state tort law, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Shrivinski v. United States Coast Guard, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of PCA on plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment in violation of Title VII. Because the court found that there were genuine issues of fact as to whether PCA took "tangible employment action" against plaintiff, the court reached neither the question of whether the district court erred by not determining whether Bobby Mills was a supervisor nor the question of whether the district court correctly applied the Faragher-Ellerth defense test. The court also held that there was uncertainty about whether there was a nexus between the harassment and plaintiff's alleged termination. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Dulaney v. Packaging Corp. of America, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose from the FAA's decision to suspend the airworthiness certification of a helicopter leased by plaintiff for his flight instruction business. Plaintiff brought suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671, et seq., alleging that he suffered financial harm as a result of the FAA's negligence in first issuing an airworthiness certificate to the helicopter. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, finding that the FAA inspector's original certification of the aircraft fell under the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. In view of the fact that the discretionary function exception required the dismissal of plaintiff's action, the court need not reach the government's contention that the misrepresentation exception to the FTCA applied as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Holbrook v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who is deaf, appealed the district court's ruling of summary judgment for defendants, arguing that he was entitled to have the jury hear his argument that he was not reasonably accommodated by defendants during their investigation, in violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. Plaintiff claimed he suffered "emotional issues" and "persistent anger" because the county "violated [his] right to communicate" by handcuffing him behind his back and failing to explain their presence. Having concluded that the ADA applied to the investigation of criminal conduct, the court next determined whether the deputies' conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. The court found that due to the exigencies inherent in responding to a domestic violence situation, no further accommodations were required than the ones made by the deputies. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Seremeth, Jr. v. Bd. of County Commissioner" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this action alleging trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 114(1); federal unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); unfair competition and deceptive trade practices under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), N.C.Gen. Stat. 75-1.1, thereby challenging the use of its federally-registered AGRI-NET trademark by defendants. Plaintiff appealed the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendants on its affirmative defense of laches. The court concluded that the district court erred in determining that defendants established its defense as a matter of law, and, separately, in failing to consider whether laches barred plaintiff's claim for prospective injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ray Communications, Inc. v. Clear Channel Comm., Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Defendants, husband and wife, were convicted in a jury trial of two offenses related to their conduct of growing marijuana at their home in a rural area of West Virginia. Defendants raised three issues on appeal. The court concluded that the affidavit provided a sufficient basis to establish probable cause for issuance of the thermal-imaging search warrant. Therefore, the court held that the district court did not err in denying defendants' motion to suppress. The court could not say that the district court acted on an erroneous legal principle in determining that defendants' reason for personally using marijuana should be excluded from evidence. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting the government's motion in limine. Finally, the court held that the district court did not clearly err in determining that defendants failed to carry their burden of proving that they satisfied the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(5). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's decision denying application of the safety-valve provision. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted after pleading guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court committed three errors in sentencing. Because the court concluded that pointing and presenting a firearm in violation of South Carolina Code 16-23-410 qualified as a crime of violence under the first clause of the Guidelines definition of that term, the court need not address defendant's argument that this offense did not qualify as a crime of violence under the second clause of the Guidelines definition. The court agreed with the Third Circuit that a sentence imposing an Alford plea qualified as a "prior sentence" within the meaning of U.S.S.G. 4A1.2. Because the court already concluded that the reasons given at the hearing adequately explained defendant's sentence, the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court's issuance of a written sentencing order failed to afford defendant an opportunity to respond to the basis for the variance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). At issue was whether defendant's sentence was properly enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), on the basis of three previous felony convictions when two of the convictions were for violation of Florida's "fleeing-or-eluding" statute, Fla. Stat. 3106.1935(2). Applying Sykes v. United States, the court held that the two convictions at issue qualified as predicate offenses under the residual clause in the ACCA and affirmed the judgment. The court also rejected defendant's contention that the ACCA's "residual clause" was unconstitutionally vague. View "United States v. Hudson" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy trustee in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy estate of the debtor appealed a district court order affirming a bankruptcy court ruling that in calculating projected disposable income, the debtor could deduct the monthly payments that she would not in fact be required to make. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court erred in ruling that the determination of the debtor's projected disposable income could not take into account the debtor's intention to surrender her ATV vehicles. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and remanded. View "Morris v. Quigley" on Justia Law