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

Plaintiffs brought an action under 18 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants after defendants asked plaintiffs to remove large, graphic signs depicting aborted fetuses that plaintiffs were using as part of a roadside demonstration. Plaintiffs and defendants subsequently cross-appealed different portions of the district court's opinion and order. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity to defendants in their individual capacities where, at the time of the anti-abortion demonstration at issue, it was not clearly established that law enforcement officers could not proscribe the display of large, graphic photographs in a traditional public forum. The court held that plaintiff was indeed awarded summary judgment on its request for a declaratory judgment that defendants' actions were an unconstitutional infringement on its First Amendment rights. There was no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of attorney's fees to plaintiffs. Finally, the court held that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to order defendants to safeguard plaintiff's First Amendment rights and refrain from impermissible content-based restrictions in the future. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on grounds of qualified immunity, the denial of an award of attorney's fees to plaintiff, and the grant of injunctive relief to plaintiff against defendants. View "Lefemine v. Wideman" on Justia Law

Ocean Pines Association, a non-stock corporation, oversees a subdivision of more than thirty-five hundred acres in Berlin, Maryland. The Association was exempt from federal income taxation as an organization "not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare" pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4)(A). The Tax Court subsequently determined that the net income from two parking lots and a beach club owned by a tax-exempt association constituted "unrelated business taxable income." The association appealed. Because the income derived from the parking lots and beach club was not "substantially related" to the association's tax-exempt purpose, the court affirmed. View "Ocean Pines Assoc. v. Commissioner of IRS" on Justia Law

In July 1994, defendant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to 210 months of incarceration, followed by a three year term of supervised release. In August 2010, defendant's probation officer filed a Notice of Violation, alleging six violations of the conditions of defendant's supervised release. Defendant subsequently appealed the judgment of the district court revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months of incarceration. Because the court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C) when it admitted and relied on hearsay evidence at defendant's revocation hearing, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Doswell" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. As part of a plea agreement, defendant waived his right to appeal "any sentence." During defendant's subsequent incarceration, the government filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), seeking to reduce his sentence in light of his assistance to the government in prosecuting an unrelated case. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed. Because the court concluded that it was within the scope of defendant's appellate waiver, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Thornsbury" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant, the "Commander" of the American National Socialist Workers' Party, on four counts (Counts 1, 3, 5, and 6). Counts 1, 5, and 6 were for transmitting interstate commerce - by email, U.S. Mail, and telephone - threats to injure or intimidate individuals in violation of 18 U.S.C. 875(c). Count 3 was for violating 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(1) for intimidation of individuals to "influence, delay, or prevent the[ir] testimony." The government subsequently appealed the district court's judgment of acquittal on Count 6 and its refusal to apply the sentencing enhancement for vulnerable victims on Count 3, and defendant appealed the district court's refusal to grant his Rule 29 motion as to Counts 1, 3, and 5 and to sustain his objection to Count 3 based on constructive amendment of the indictment. The court affirmed the district court's rulings on the Rule 29 motions as well as to all four counts, and affirmed defendant's convictions on Counts 1, 3, and 5, but vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court applied an incorrect standard in deciding whether to consider an enhancement for victims' vulnerability. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

T-Mobile filed a complaint in the district court against the Board, asserting that the Board's denials of T-Mobile's applications to construct a wireless service facility on an existing transmission pole violated certain provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B), which placed limitations on a local governing body's decisional authority regarding the placement and modification of personal wireless service facilities. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board and T-Mobile appealed. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that T-Mobile failed to establish that the Board effectively prohibited personal wireless services, as proscribed by subsection (B)(i)(II), or unreasonably discriminated against T-Mobile, as proscribed by subsection (B)(i)(I). Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of the Board. View "T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Fairfax County Board" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The court held that, in light of its review of defendants' specific arguments and based on the totality of the surrounding circumstances, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress his statements; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the third indictment because defendant was first arrested for the two counts of aggravated sexual abuse in the Eastern District of Virginia and that arrest was for the same charges for the same conduct listed in the operative third indictment; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Government's motion in limine to exclude defendant's expert witness. Therefore, finding no error, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful importation of heroine and defendant subsequently appealed his sentence. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court applied the wrong legal standard and that the government's failure to timely object to the PSR should have precluded the court's consideration of the government's objection to application of the safety valve. The court also rejected defendant's challenges to the district court's denial of relief under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f). Defendant bore the burden of proving that he had provided truthful and complete disclosure to the government, but he presented no evidence compelling such a conclusion. The district court committed no error when concluding that defendant's international-clothes-buying story was false, and that conclusion provided a proper basis for the court's rejection of defendant's claim that he was entitled to sentencing under the safety valve. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Aidoo" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of sexual exploitation of a minor (Count 1), three counts of attempted enticement of a minor (Counts 6-8), and nine counts of witness tampering (Counts 3-5 and 9-14). Defendant subsequently appealed his convictions and sentence. The court held that defendant's claim for improper venue was without merit where defendant conducted at least some of his activity from the Eastern District of Virginia; the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions on Counts 6-8; and the district court did not err by denying defendant the right of a meaningful allocution before pronouncing sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Engle" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the use of his presentence report (PSR) to determine the circumstances surrounding two prior violent-felony convictions for sentencing purposes. The court found it was plain error for the district court to use the PSR's discussion of the circumstances surrounding these two convictions in applying the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), enhancement. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for a new sentence hearing on this issue. View "United States v. Boykin, Jr." on Justia Law