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

A city ordinance criminalizes broadcasting obscene, profane, or vulgar language from commercial properties above certain volumes at specific times. A bar owner challenged the ordinance, claiming it violated the First Amendment. This appeal focuses on the restriction of "vulgar" language.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina declined to enjoin the vulgar-language provision, interpreting it as only restricting speech that is obscene under constitutional standards, which can be entirely prohibited. The court upheld the obscene-language and vulgar-language provisions but enjoined the profane-language provision. The bar owner appealed, arguing that the vulgar-language provision, properly construed, is unconstitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court disagreed with the district court's interpretation, concluding that the vulgar-language provision reaches some constitutionally protected speech and is not limited to obscene speech. The court held that the vulgar-language provision is content-based and fails strict scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests. The court found that the provision is both overinclusive and underinclusive, affecting protected speech and not effectively serving the city's stated interests.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment in part and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the vulgar-language provision is unconstitutional. View "Moshoures v. City of North Myrtle Beach" on Justia Law

Jason Wayne Gowen, a pretrial detainee at the Lynchburg Adult Detention Center, was placed in solitary confinement for 125 days after complaining about hot conditions in his cell and encouraging other inmates to do the same. Gowen filed a lawsuit against several correctional officers, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights due to retaliation for his grievances and his Fourteenth Amendment rights for being placed in solitary confinement without due process.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Gowen’s First Amendment retaliation claim, stating that he failed to show a causal connection between his grievances and the adverse actions taken against him. The court later granted summary judgment to the officers on Gowen’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, concluding that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Gowen adequately alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim by showing that he engaged in protected activity, faced adverse action, and established a causal connection through temporal proximity and the officers' awareness of his grievances. The court also determined that Gowen did not forfeit his argument regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies, as his verified complaint contained sufficient evidence of his attempts to use the grievance process and the officers' failure to respond.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Gowen’s First Amendment retaliation claim and vacated the summary judgment on his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s findings. View "Gowen v. Winfield" on Justia Law

Scott Rendelman was convicted in 2008 for mailing threatening communications under 18 U.S.C. § 876(c). The district court instructed the jury that the government only needed to prove that a “reasonable person” would find Rendelman’s communications threatening. In 2023, the Supreme Court held in Counterman v. Colorado that the First Amendment requires the government to prove that the defendant was subjectively aware of the threatening nature of his statements. Rendelman now seeks authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction based on this new ruling.Previously, the district court denied Rendelman’s first § 2255 motion, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declined to authorize a second § 2255 motion. Rendelman’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed Rendelman’s motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. The court concluded that Rendelman satisfied the gatekeeping requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), as the Supreme Court’s decision in Counterman announced a new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively and was previously unavailable to Rendelman. The court rejected the government’s argument that Rendelman must also show a plausible claim for relief, adhering to the standard that a prima facie showing of possible merit is sufficient. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit granted Rendelman’s motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. View "In re Rendelman" on Justia Law

Stephen Bryant was sentenced to death by a South Carolina state court. During postconviction proceedings, Bryant filed a new application for relief, claiming his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment due to his intellectual disabilities, as defined in Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida. Later, Bryant sought to amend his application to include a claim that he suffers from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) and that executing individuals with FASD should also be prohibited under the Eighth Amendment. The state postconviction court denied this request, ruling it was both impermissibly successive and filed too late.Bryant's initial appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which focused on a single claim of evidentiary error, was denied. He then sought post-conviction relief on several grounds, none of which included the Eighth Amendment claim. The state trial court denied these claims, and the South Carolina Supreme Court denied discretionary review. Bryant subsequently filed for federal habeas corpus relief, which was stayed to allow him to exhaust state remedies. He filed two new applications in state court, one of which was allowed to proceed on the intellectual disability claim but not on the FASD claim. The state trial court ultimately denied the intellectual disability claim on its merits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the state trial court's refusal to permit Bryant to amend his application to add the FASD claim rested on state procedural grounds that were independent of federal law and adequate to bar federal habeas review. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, concluding that Bryant's FASD claim was procedurally defaulted and could not be considered on its merits. View "Bryant v. Stirling" on Justia Law

Curtis Wells parked his car near Arlington Cemetery and was noticed by Officer Armstrong due to his animated gestures while on a phone call. Armstrong approached Wells and discovered that his car had an expired registration. Arlington County police were called, and they found that Wells did not have a driver's license and had weapons in his car. The police decided to tow Wells's car and conducted an inventory search, which revealed various weapons and tactical gear, including a ballistic plate carrier. Wells was sent home, but further investigation suggested that the plate might have been stolen from the Army. Nine days later, Wells was arrested for receiving stolen property.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Wells brought state and federal claims against various officers and entities, alleging Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations, among other claims. The district court dismissed all his claims, reasoning that the officers were protected by qualified immunity and that Wells had not plausibly alleged the necessary elements for his state tort claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the officers' actions were protected by qualified immunity because Wells did not have a clearly established right against the officers' conduct. The court found that the initial approach by Officer Armstrong was justified under the community-caretaking exception, the inventory search of Wells's car was conducted according to standard procedures, and Wells had consented to the safekeeping of his property. Additionally, the court held that Wells's Second Amendment claims failed because the right to public carry was not clearly established in 2020. The court also dismissed Wells's state law claims, finding that he had not plausibly alleged the necessary elements for false imprisonment or malicious prosecution. View "Wells v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

Courthouse News Service, a news organization, sought remote online access to civil court records from the Circuit Court for Prince William County, Virginia, similar to the access granted to Virginia attorneys. Virginia law prohibits the clerk from providing such access to non-attorneys. Courthouse News sued, claiming this restriction violated its First Amendment and Equal Protection rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Courthouse News's Equal Protection claim and granted summary judgment for the defendants on the First Amendment claims. The court found the restrictions to be content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations justified by the state's interests in the orderly administration of justice and protecting sensitive personal information.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's ruling on the First Amendment and Equal Protection claims, holding that the access restriction was a content-neutral regulation narrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests. The court found that the restriction did not violate the First Amendment as it provided ample alternative channels for accessing court records and did not burden more access than necessary. The court also concluded that the restriction did not violate the Equal Protection Clause for the same reasons it passed First Amendment scrutiny.However, the court vacated the district court's ruling on the Dissemination Restriction claim, finding that Courthouse News lacked standing to challenge it since the restriction only applied to those with remote access, which Courthouse News did not have. The case was remanded for the district court to dismiss this claim without prejudice. View "Courthouse News Service v. Smith" on Justia Law

Danny Fox, an active-duty servicemember, purchased a property in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2015. The City of Norfolk determined the property was unsafe and uninhabitable, repeatedly notifying Fox of building code violations. Despite these notices, Fox did not make the necessary repairs. In December 2018, the city demolished the house, deeming it a public nuisance. Fox subsequently sued the city, claiming inverse condemnation, among other things, arguing the property was not a nuisance and that the city's actions were pretextual to increase its tax base.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The court held that Fox's federal constitutional claims were barred by the statute of limitations. It also ruled that Fox's inverse condemnation claim failed because, whether or not the property was a nuisance, he could not demonstrate the city's public use requirement. The court found no evidence to support Fox's claim that the city's actions were pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Fox's inverse condemnation claim failed regardless of whether the property was a nuisance. If the property was a nuisance, the city had the authority to abate it without compensation. If it was not a nuisance, Fox could not show a public use, a necessary element for an inverse condemnation claim. The court also found that Fox provided no evidence to support his pretext argument. Thus, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the city. View "D.A. Realestate Investment, LLC v. City of Norfolk" on Justia Law

David Shanton, Sr. was involved in two armed bank robberies in Hagerstown, Maryland, shortly after completing a 20-year sentence for a previous bank robbery. During the first robbery, Shanton threatened to kill anyone who called the police and pointed a shotgun at a deputy sheriff while fleeing with nearly $34,000. He was apprehended during the second attempted robbery. Shanton was indicted and convicted on multiple counts, including armed bank robbery, discharging and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and possessing a firearm as a felon.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland sentenced Shanton to 188 months for each armed bank robbery and firearm possession conviction, to be served concurrently, plus consecutive terms for the firearm offenses, totaling 608 months. Shanton's sentence was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) due to his prior convictions, including Maryland robbery. Shanton did not initially object to the enhancement. On direct appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed his convictions and sentence.Shanton later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging the constitutionality of his ACCA-enhanced sentences based on the Supreme Court's decision in Samuel Johnson v. United States, which invalidated the ACCA's residual clause. The district court allowed Shanton to supplement his motion, arguing that his Maryland robbery convictions no longer qualified as violent felonies under ACCA's elements clause. The district court rejected this argument, relying on Fourth Circuit precedent, and denied the motion but issued a certificate of appealability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that Maryland robbery qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA's elements clause, consistent with prior Fourth Circuit decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in Stokeling v. United States. The court concluded that Maryland robbery involves the use of force against a person, meeting the ACCA's definition of a violent felony. View "United States v. Shanton" on Justia Law

Charles Pittman pleaded guilty to violating a federal law that criminalizes burning or attempting to burn buildings owned by institutions that receive federal funding. He was charged with aiding and abetting others in maliciously damaging and destroying the Market House, a building owned by the City of Fayetteville, which receives federal financial assistance. During his plea hearing, Pittman confirmed his understanding of the charges and admitted to committing acts constituting the elements of the crime.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina accepted Pittman's guilty plea and later sentenced him to 60 months of imprisonment. Before sentencing, Pittman moved to dismiss Count 1, arguing that the statute required a nexus between the federal financial assistance and the damaged property, and that the criminal information failed to allege such a nexus. He also argued that the City of Fayetteville is not an "institution or organization" under the statute. The district court denied the motion to dismiss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Pittman argued that his conduct did not violate the statute and that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him. The court held that Pittman waived his statutory construction arguments by pleading guilty, as a guilty plea admits that the conduct violated the statute. The court also found that Pittman's as-applied constitutional challenge was forfeited because he did not timely raise it before the district court, and he failed to show plain error.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Pittman's guilty plea waived his statutory arguments and that his constitutional challenge was both forfeited and failed to meet the plain-error standard. View "United States v. Pittman" on Justia Law

Johnnie Franklin Wills, a state prisoner, filed a habeas petition challenging his life sentence under West Virginia’s recidivist statute. He argued that the judicially crafted test for determining whether a recidivist life sentence is proportional to the crime is unconstitutionally vague. Wills was convicted of grand larceny and conspiracy to commit grand larceny in 2016, and due to his prior eight felony convictions, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after fifteen years under the recidivist statute.The West Virginia courts denied Wills relief, stating that the void-for-vagueness doctrine does not apply to their proportionality test. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed this decision, distinguishing Wills’s case from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson v. United States and Sessions v. Dimaya, which invalidated certain statutory provisions as unconstitutionally vague. The state court maintained that the proportionality test was clear and did not fall under the same scrutiny as the statutes in Johnson and Dimaya.Wills then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia also denied. The district court found that the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The court noted that the proportionality test serves as a judicial limitation on the recidivist statute, unlike the statutory mandates in Johnson and Dimaya.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the state court’s ruling was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the U.S. Supreme Court has not extended the void-for-vagueness doctrine to judicially crafted proportionality tests. Therefore, Wills’s habeas petition was denied. View "Wills v. Pszczolkowski" on Justia Law