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

Plaintiffs appealed a district court order dismissing several of their claims in a suit regarding conduct that occurred during bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs were former officers of EBW Laser, a company that entered bankruptcy in 2005. After the case was converted to Chapter 7, the court appointed attorney Charles Ivey as trustee and Ivey subsequently retained his firm (IMGT) to serve as his counsel and to prosecute an adversary proceeding he had filed against plaintiffs. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in dismissing their claims against the IMGT defendants under the Barton doctrine. The Supreme Court established in Barton that before another court could obtain subject-matter jurisdiction over a suit filed against a receiver for acts committed in his official capacity, plaintiff must obtain leave of the court that appointed the receiver. The court held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claims and properly applied the Barton doctrine. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order. View "McDaniel, Jr. v. Blust" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for willfully and knowingly making a false statement on a passport application after he prepared, signed, and submitted passport applications for his three stepsons and listed himself as the children's father. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the Bronston literal truth defense did not entitle defendant to judgment as a matter of law; in the context of an application for a United States passport, the word "father" was not fundamentally ambiguous; the evidence was sufficient to find that defendant understood the inquiry made by the passport application as the Government itself did and answered the question posed falsely; and the district court did not err in refusing to give defendant's proposed instruction regarding the lack of statutory definition of the word "father." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Sarwari" on Justia Law

The State sought reversal of the district court's judgment granting a writ of habeas corpus to petitioner. In granting the writ, the district court vacated the sentence of death imposed after petitioner's conviction of first degree murder. The district court concluded, inter alia, that the state courts of North Carolina unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, in rejecting petitioner's claim that his attorney on direct appeal failed to provide effective assistance of counsel. The court held that the district court's decision granting petitioner's petition ran contrary to the deference that federal courts were required to afford state court decisions adjudicating the merits of habeas corpus claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment granting the petition on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the remainder of the district court's judgment, rejecting petitioner's Brady v. Maryland and Atkins v. Virginia claims. View "Richardson v. Branker" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced on two counts of possessing a firearm or ammunition while subject to a domestic violence protective order in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8). Defendant appealed the district court's determination that his convictions under section 922(g)(8) did not violate the Second Amendment. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. But because it was plain error to convict and sentence defendant on two separate counts for the simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition under section 922(g)(8), the court reversed defendant's conviction as to count two of the indictment, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Mahin" on Justia Law

In this case, an insurer sought a declaratory judgment that it was required to indemnify its insured for no more than 40% of a state court judgment because it had covered its insured for no more than 40% of the time in which the state court plaintiff was exposed to lead poisoning. The district court agreed that the insurer was responsible for only a portion of the judgment, notwithstanding the fact that its insured was held jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment in the underlying state proceeding. Plaintiff challenged the district court's decision to allocate the insurer's liability on a pro rata basis. Plaintiff next argued that even if pro rata allocation was appropriate, the district court should have used the date of her first elevated blood lead level rather than her date of birth to calculate her period of exposure. The insurer challenged the district court's refusal to reduce its period of coverage to 22 months. Applying Maryland law, the court affirmed the district court's judgment with respect to plaintiff's arguments. With respect to the matter raised by the cross-appeal, the court reversed. The principle underlying the court's decision was that an insurance company could not be held liable for periods of risk it never contracted to cover. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Pennsylvania Nat'l Mutual v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Defendant sought relief from a sentence of 240 months in prison, imposed as a result of his illegal reentry into the United States after being removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony. On appeal, defendant raised several procedural challenges to the sentence. The court held that the sentencing court committed no procedural error because the Guidelines did not expressly prohibit the triple counting of defendant's prior record; the court did not impermissibly count defendant's extensive criminal record when it imposed the upward variance justified under the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors; the district court's upward departures were not procedurally defective; and the 240 month sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Rivera-Santana" on Justia Law

Named Claimants filed "class proofs of claims" in these consolidated bankruptcy cases in which Circuit City and related entities are the debtors. Named Claimants alleged that they, together with unnamed claimants, were owed almost $150 million in unpaid overtime wages. The court affirmed the decisions of the bankruptcy court with a different procedural approach for allowing claimants to file class proofs of claim and to present Rule 9014 motions. With respect to the bankruptcy court's ruling that in the circumstances of this case, the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees, the court concluded that the court's ruling fell within its discretion. With respect to these Named Claimants' challenge to notice, the court concluded that the notice to them was not constitutionally deficient - a conclusion with which they agreed - and that, with respect to unnamed claimants, the Named Claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice. View "Gentry v. Circuit City Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff's application for naturalization was denied by USCIS when USCIS determined that plaintiff's 2002 conviction in the District of Columbia Superior Court for distribution of cocaine in a drug-free zone qualified as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101, which prevented plaintiff from establishing his good moral character and thus obtaining citizenship. Plaintiff contended that because his 2002 conviction was set aside under D.C. law, it had no operative effect and USCIS should not have considered it. The court held that plaintiff's conviction remained unchanged for immigration purposes despite the fact that the conviction was set aside on rehabilitative grounds. Because plaintiff's conviction was an absolute bar on obtaining citizenship, his naturalization application was properly denied. View "Phan v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Appellants, Mark McBurney and Roger Hurlbert, appealed the district court's award of summary judgment to appellees where the district court held that Virginia's Freedom of Information Act, Va. Code Ann. 2.2-3700 et seq. (VFOIA), did not violate appellants' rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause or Hurlbert's rights under the Dormant Commerce Clause. The court concluded that VFOIA did not infringe on any of appellants' fundamental rights or privileges under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The court also held that Hurlbert waived his claim under the Dormant Commerce Clause because he failed to raise any challenge in his opening brief. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "McBurney, et al. v. Young, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order granting summary judgment to the United States on her claim seeking money damages for alleged violations of the Privacy Protection Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000aa. Plaintiff, a photojournalist who claimed a special interest in covering protests, political demonstrations, and grassroots activism, was identified on a security camera as being present during a protest demonstration during the International Monetary Funds' annual spring meeting. Police officers executed a search warrant, believing it likely that plaintiff's residence contained evidence of suspected criminal activity that occurred during the protest. Plaintiff was never arrested or charged with any crimes relating to the incident. Plaintiff subsequently brought an action against the United States under the PPA and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States. The court agreed with the district court that there was probable cause to believe plaintiff conspired with a group of vandals or aided and abetted the offenses committed by the group. Accordingly, the court concluded that the United States was entitled to summary judgment based on the "suspect exception" to the PPA and affirmed the judgment. View "Sennett v. United States, et al." on Justia Law