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

The Chamber sought final review of the Board's rule, which required employers subject to the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151-169, to post an official Board notice informing employees of their rights under the Act. The court held that the Board exceeded its authority in promulgating the challenged rule and affirmed the judgment of the district court. The rulemaking function provided by the Act only empowered the Board to carry out its statutorily defined reactive roles in addressing unfair labor practice charges and conducting representation elections upon request; there was no function or responsibility of the Board not predicated upon the filing of an unfair labor practice charge or a representation petition; and Congress never granted the Board the statutory authority to do so. View "Chamber of Commerce v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of multiple federal firearm and drug offenses, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence partly on the ground that his counsel had been unconstitutionally ineffective in failing to challenge the search of his vehicle on direct appeal under Arizona v. Gant. The court concluded that defendant's counsel did not perform deficiently in declining to challenge the search on direct appeal because the search of the vehicle was plainly justified by the automobile exception to the warrant requirement irrespective of Gant. Moreover, counsel's performance did not prejudice defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Baker" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for various firearm and drug crimes. The court joined its sister circuits in interpreting the plain language of section 3162(a)(2) of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3162(a)(2), to mean that a defendant who failed to move for dismissal prior to trial on the basis of an untimely indictment waived his right to move for dismissal under the speedy indictment provision of the Speedy Trial Act. Accordingly, the Speedy Trial Act precluded dismissal of defendant's indictment because he failed to move for dismissal prior to trial. The court also concluded that the district court erred by commenting on inadmissible aspects of defendant's criminal history before allowing defense counsel a reasonable amount of time in which to request a poll of the jury but the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights and did not warrant reversal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cherry, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for three counts of knowingly possessing firearms while illegally and unlawfully present in the United States. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that defendant was illegally or unlawfully in the United States at the time he possessed the firearms in question; there was no Sixth Amendment violation where defendant had given no reason why excluding a government witness's testimony regarding defendant's pending I-485 application and participation in the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System violated his confrontation right and where he was permitted to cross-examine the witness; and the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict in this case. View "United States v. Al Sabahi" on Justia Law

Defendant, indicted for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and heroin, was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and deemed incompetent to stand trial. The district court, applying Sell v. United States, granted the government's motion to involuntarily medicate defendant for trial competency purposes. The district court did not mention or analyze any of the less intrusive alternatives suggested by the Supreme Court in Sell or by defendant himself. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings because careful findings concerning the availability of less intrusive means were necessary to vindicate the Supreme Court's admonition that forcible medication motions should be carefully scrutinized due to their impact on personal liberty. View "United States v. Chatmon" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of El Salvador, pled guilty to possession of a concealed dangerous weapon and possession of marijuana in 2004, in violation of Maryland law. In 2008, defendant was found guilty of driving without a valid license. Two years later, defendant pled guilty to assault in the second degree and was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement shortly after sentencing. In 2011, defendant pled guilty to unlawful reentry after removal. The parties disputed whether defendant's 2004 probation-before-judgment disposition triggered a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(D). The court held that diversionary dispositions arising from guilty pleas - including defendant's probation before judgment disposition at issue here - constituted predicate convictions under section 2L1.2(b)(1)(D). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Medina" on Justia Law

ABB filed a complaint against CSX alleging that the electrical transformer that CSX transported was damaged in transit and that CSX was liable for the full amount of the damage. CSX denied full liability, alternatively contending that the parties had agreed in the bill of lading to limit CSX's liability. The court vacated the portion of the district court's judgment limiting any liability on the part of CSX because it concluded that the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 11706, subjected CSX to full liability for the shipment and that the parties did not modify CSX's level of liability by written agreement as permitted in that statute. View "ABB, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved two common methods employed to blend ethanol with conventional gasoline: inline blending and splash blending. Plaintiffs, API and AFPMA, brought federal preemption-based challenges in the district court seeking to enjoin enforcement of North Carolina's Ethanol Blending Statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-90. Although the court agreed with the district court insofar as it rejected plaintiffs' Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. 2801-2841, and federal renewable fuel program preemption challenges, the court held that genuine issues of material fact remained unresolved as to plaintiffs' Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051-1113, preemption challenge to the Blending Statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "American Petroleum Institute v. Cooper, III" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for various offenses related to the trafficking of contraband cigarettes. The court saw no merit in defendant's argument that the conduct of ATF agents in this case was unlawful, or otherwise "shocking," or "offensive to traditional notions of fundamental fairness." Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction. The court concluded that defendant's claim that the district court miscalculated the forfeiture amount by calculating the sum based on the gross proceeds was without merit. View "United States v. Hasan" on Justia Law

Westmoreland challenged an ALJ's decision, affirmed by the Benefits Review Board, to award black lung benefits to one of Westmoreland's former employees. The ALJ found that the evidence failed to establish that the employee suffered from clinical pneumoconiosis but did establish that the employee suffered from legal pneumoconiosis. Regarding this legal pneumoconiosis finding, the ALJ chose to credit one medical opinion over others. The ALJ also found that the employee was totally disabled as a result of his pneumoconiosis and thus awarded him benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901 et seq. The court concluded that the ALJ's decision and order to award benefits was supported by substantial evidence, rational, and consistent with applicable law. Therefore, the Board did not err in affirming the ALJ's decision and order, and the court accordingly denied Westmoreland's petition for review. View "Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cochran" on Justia Law