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

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a handgun by a felon. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the hand gun based on his claim that the frisk violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the objective facts of record supported the reasonableness of the officer's suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous and thus his authority to conduct a frisk. View "United States v. George" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Estonian-born citizen of Russia, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying her untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings. The court held that when a petitioner failed to meet the statutory deadline to file a motion to reopen her immigration case, equitable tolling was appropriate only when (1) the Government's wrongful conduct prevented the petitioner from filing a timely motion; or (2) extraordinary circumstances beyond the petitioner's control made it impossible. In this case, petitioner simply misunderstood the accurate, but limited, advice given by a USCIS officer and then ignored two warnings from her attorney that she needed to file a motion to reopen her immigration case within the statutory time limit. Accordingly, petitioner failed to satisfy either criteria for equitable tolling and the court denied the petition for review. View "Kuusk v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

A putative class of female former and current managers of Family Dollar stores filed suit alleging violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and Section 216(b) of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. 206(d). The court found that the district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint was based on an erroneous interpretation of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, and the denial was thus an abuse of discretion. Without resolving the class certification issue, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider whether, based on the court's interpretation of Wal-Mart, the proposed amended complaint satisfied the class certification requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. View "Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying his application for cancellation of removal on the ground that he failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement of 8 U.S.C. 1229b. The BIA has held that, pursuant to In re Romalez-Alcaide, an alien's continuous physical presence terminated when he voluntarily departed the United States under threat of removal. The court concluded that, in light of the fact that section 1229b was silent as to whether an alien's voluntary departure under threat of removal terminated his continuous physical presence in the country, the BIA's interpretation of the statute was reasonable. The court concluded that petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that he was eligible for relief and denied the petition for review. View "Garcia v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for unlawfully possessing ammunition after being previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; the district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury; but the district court's application of the modified categorical approach to support defendant's sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), was in error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and reversed the sentence, remanding for resentencing. View "United States v. Royal" on Justia Law