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

Defendant was convicted of three counts of filing false income tax returns. Defendant was subsequently denied habeas relief but the district court granted him a certificate of appealability (COA) on his Sixth Amendment challenge. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that defendant failed to establish that his trial counsel's representation was anything other than objectively reasonable where counsel's decision not to call certain witnesses was a reasonable strategic decision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Dehlinger" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, requested that the Attorney General withhold removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3). Petitioner claimed that as a former member of the violent Mara Salvatrucha gang (MS-13), he is a member of a particular social group and that he would be killed if sent back to El Salvador because he renounced his membership in MS-13. The court concluded that petitioner's proposed particular social group of former MS-13 members from El Salvador was immutable for withholding of removal purposes in that the only way that petitioner could change his membership in the group would be to rejoin MS-13. Accordingly, the court held that the BIA erred in its ruling on immutability and reversed and remanded. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture because it was not supported by sufficient evidence. View "Martinez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Altarum, alleging that Altarum discriminated against him by wrongfully discharging him on account of disability and that Altarum failed to accommodate his disability. Plaintiff was terminated after he injured his legs on a subway platform and was on short-term disability benefits. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his wrongful-discharge claim. The court concluded that, under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553, and its implementing regulations, an impairment is not categorically excluded from being a disability simply because it is temporary. In this instance, the impairment alleged by plaintiff fell comfortably within the amended Acts' expanded definition of disability. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Summers v. Altarum Institute, Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action suit challenging the legality of the toll charged by the MWAA for use of the Dules Toll Road. The district court dismissed the complaint on numerous grounds. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claims were barred neither by the standing requirement of Article III nor the prudential restrictions the court has recognized on its own judicial power; under the Elizabeth River Crossings OpCo, LLC v. Meeks framework, the tolls charged for passage on the Dules Toll Road are user fees, not taxes, under Virginia law; and therefore, their collection by the MWAA did not run afoul of the Virginia Constitution and did not violate the due process rights of motorists. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint. View "Corr v. Metropolitan Washington" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of two counts of bank robbery. The court concluded that the district court's refusal to allow defendant to testify in narrative form was not arbitrary or disproportionate to its purpose; the court also rejected defendant's claim that the district court impermissibly forced him to choose between his right to represent himself and to choose between testifying pro se in question-answer form and testifying in response to questions from standby counsel who would then control the case; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Beckton" on Justia Law

Defendant, who is deaf and communicates through sign language, appealed the district court's order of civil commitment following an evidentiary hearing under 18 U.S.C. 4248. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court in denying defendant's request for consecutive interpretation; the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant is a "sexually dangerous person;" and the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's equal protection and due process claims in light of United States v. Timms. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Heyer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's order of restitution as part of his sentence for obstructing federal bankruptcy proceedings. Defendant contended that the purported victims suffered losses when he caused them to take out significant loans for the benefit of his church - conduct with which he was not charged or convicted. At issue was whether the purported victims were victims "of the offense" for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 3563(b). The court concluded that the statute required the purported victims to be victims only of the offense of conviction; the Government failed to demonstrate that the purported victims' losses were "caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of" defendant's offense of conviction - obstruction of federal bankruptcy proceedings; and therefore, the district court abused its discretion in awarding restitution to the purported victims, as the award was contrary to the legal principles set out in the court's precedent. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Freeman" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motions to suppress evidence. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that the traffic stop at issue was reasonable in scope and duration and that defendant was lawfully seized for a traffic violation when the dog sniff occurred. The court also concluded that the district court correctly held that the dog was sufficiently reliable and that his positive alert provided probable cause for the search of defendant's vehicle. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Tanzanian national who suffers from severe bipolar disorder, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for asylum. Petitioner argued that he faced severe persecution because of his membership in the social group of individuals with bipolar disorder who exhibit erratic behavior. The court vacated the BIA's social visibility finding because it rests on legal error; the BIA also committed legal error in concluding that petitioner's group lacked particularity; and petitioner's proposed group is immutable. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded for further consideration. View "Temu v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions, including conspiracy and murder, arguing that the district court erred by not affording him the assistance of two attorneys under the terms of 18 U.S.C. 3005. Because the right to additional counsel under section 3005 was solely statutory, the court held that the district court was not required to call it to the attention of defendant. Therefore, the district court did not err, much less plainly err. In the alternative, the district court did not plainly err by excluding the testimony of a cooperating witness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Shepperson" on Justia Law