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

After the City initiated a "quick take" proceeding to take the property of Clear Sky Car Wash, Clear Sky filed suit to challenge the City's actions. Clear Sky alleged that the City's conduct violated the mandatory real property acquisition policies set forth in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA), 42 U.S.C. 4651, which were applicable to state agencies when, as here, federal funds were involved. The district court granted the City's motion to dismiss. The court affirmed, concluding that section 4651 did not create enforceable rights. Therefore, Clear Sky lacked any basis for a private action to remedy violations under the URA. Further, 42 U.S.C. 1983 did not give Clear Sky enforceable rights to file suit. The court rejected Clear Sky's argument that it had an Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., claim against the USDOT to require it to enforce the policies of section 4651. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Clear Sky Car Wash LLC v. City of Chesapeake, VA" on Justia Law

Millennium, processor of titanium dioxide, filed suit contending that the Insurers had wrongfully denied Millennium's claim for coverage under contingent business interruption provisions of commercial liability insurance policies issued by the Insurers. After an explosion occurred at Apache's, a gas producer, Varanus Island facility, it notified Alinta, a retail gas supplier, which in turn sent a notice of "force majeure" to Millennium and other customers. On appeal, National Union and the Insurers challenged the district court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Millennium. The court found the term "direct" to be clear as used in the Policies and without ambiguity and, therefore, rejected Millennium's claim to the contrary. The court concluded that, on the plain language of the Policies, Apache could not be considered a direct contributing property to Millennium. The court rejected Millennium's alternative argument that it could also receive coverage under the "for the account of" clause of the Endorsements because coverage was triggered only by damage to or destruction of contributing properties. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded where Millennium presented no plausible reading of the Policies under which it could receive coverage for its contingent business interruption losses. View "Millennium Inorganic Chemicals v. National Union Fire Ins." on Justia Law

North Carolina's House Bill 289 authorized the state's Division of Motor Vehicles to issue, among other specialty license plates, a "Choose Life" plate. However, this law authorized no pro-choice specialty license plate. North Carolina vehicle owners who wanted a pro-choice specialty plate, along with the ACLU, filed suit challenging the statute. North Carolina argued that it could so discriminate because specialty plate messages constituted pure government speech free from First Amendment viewpoint-neutrality constraints. The court concluded that, because the specialty plate speech at issue implicated private speech rights and was not pure government speech, North Carolina's authorizing a "Choose Life" plate while refusing to authorize a pro-choice plate constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and a permanent injunction in favor of the vehicle owners and the ACLU. View "American Civil Liberties Union v. Tata" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of charges related to credit and debit card fraud. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss based on purported Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161, violations; the district court did not plainly err in admitting business records related to cardholders who did not testify at trial where the business records were not testimonial; the business records reflected fraudulent transactions that were ultimately traced to defendant and were plainly relevant to proving access device fraud; the business records were not unduly prejudicial; and the court rejected defendant's argument that evidence of unauthorized transactions to which no cardholder testified should have been excluded at trial and at sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Keita" on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives of China who have two children born in the United States, sought asylum and withholding of removal on the basis that one or both of them would be persecuted for having violated China's one-child policy, and for their Christian faith. The BIA and the IJ, relying on a 2007 State Department report, concluded that neither petitioner established a well-founded fear of persecution. The court granted the petition for review to the extent petitioners sought relief based on China's one-child policy where petitioners offered powerful contradictory evidence that required the agency to account for it in a meaningful way. The court remanded the claim to the BIA for further consideration. The court denied the petition for review to the extent it was grounded on the religious faith of petitioners. View "Chen v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of several offenses arising from terrorism activities. In consolidated appeals, defendants raised several arguments challenging their convictions and sentences. The court rejected defendants' argument that their speech espousing violent jihad was protected by the First Amendment, concluding that the First Amendment was no bar to the government's use of defendants' speech to demonstrate their participation in the charged conspiracies; the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give defendants' proposed jury instructions; the court rejected defendants' numerous claims of evidentiary errors; and the evidence was sufficient to support their various convictions. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err by applying the terrorism enhancement; Defendant Hassan failed to establish that he was a minimal participant and did not qualify for a reduction in his sentence based on that ground; and Defendants Yaghi and Sherifi's sentences were substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hassan" on Justia Law

The district court granted defendant's motion for a mistrial on the condition that she waive her rights under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161 - 3174. More than 70 days after the mistrial was declared, the district court conducted a second trial where the jury found defendant guilty of theft of government funds. The court held that although defendant's attempt to waive her rights under the Act was null and void, she was not entitled to assert for the first time on appeal that a violation of the Act occurred; the plain language of the Act required that a defendant asserting a violation of the Act move for dismissal of an indictment before a new trial begins, or be precluded from seeking such a dismissal; in view of this waiver imposed by statute, the court was not permitted to consider defendant's argument that her rights under the Act were violated; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Mosteller" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's order of civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 18 U.S.C. 4247-48. The court concluded that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to find that defendant met the standard for civil commitment under the Act where the Government did not present clear and convincing evidence that defendant's mental illnesses would cause him to have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Antone" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a state prisoner housed at Red Onion State Prison (ROSP), filed suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000 cc et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging ROSP's 2010 Ramadan policy. ROSP had devised a new eligibility policy for 2010 where, in addition to signing up to participate in Ramadan, inmates had to provide some physical indicia of Islamic faith. The court vacated the district court's summary judgment order granting defendants qualified immunity on plaintiff's claims for monetary relief where defendants have failed to establish as a matter of law that the 2010 Ramadan policy, as applied to plaintiff, did not violate his First Amendment rights and where their alleged actions violated plaintiff's clearly established rights; vacated the district court's decision that the prison's abandonment of the policy mooted the claims for equitable relief where defendants failed to meet their "heavy burden" of establishing that it was "absolutely clear" that the 2010 Ramadan policy would not be reinstated; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wall v. Wade" on Justia Law