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

This appeal stems from the district court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus relief. An incarcerated person at Federal Correctional Institution Williamsburg, Petitioner alleged that the Bureau of Prisons had miscalculated his release date by not retroactively applying the First Step Act to his previous sentence and crediting the resulting good conduct time to his release date. After the Warden moved for summary judgment, a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) concluding that Petitioner’s petition should be dismissed. Petitioner objected to the recommendation in detail; nonetheless, the district court did not review the R&R de novo because Petitioner had only “reargue[d] his case.” After reviewing for clear errors, the district court adopted the R&R and dismissed Petitioner’s petition. On appeal, Petitioner first submits—and the Warden concedes—that the district court erred by failing to review the R&R de novo. Petitioner further requests that the Fourth Circuit proceed to the merits of his habeas petition and consider the retroactive applicability of the First Step Act. Finally, Petititioner asked this Court to recall its previous mandate dismissing his 2015 appeal of his revocation sentence.   The Fourth Circuit agreed with Petitioner that his grounds for objection were clear and thus should have prompted a de novo review of the magistrate’s R&R. Because the district court only reviewed the R&R for clear error, the court vacated and remanded with directions to review Petitioner’s grounds for objection de novo. The court declined, however, to consider the merits of Petitioner’s petition or recall of the court’s previous mandate. View "Larone Elijah v. Richard Dunbar" on Justia Law

Virginia police responded to a 911 call seeking help to locate Plaintiff, who they were told was potentially armed and suicidal. After failing to find Plaintiff in his house, two officers and a K-9 searched the surrounding woods. The dog quickly caught Plaintiff’s scent, leading officers to find him lying in a shallow ditch. Bodycam footage shows the subsequent heated encounter, with officers demanding Plaintiff turn around and Plaintiff angrily ordering them to leave. After a two-minute impasse, an officer twice released the dog, who bit Plaintiff and caused a severe injury. The officers ultimately discovered Plaintiff didn’t have a gun. Plaintiff sued under state law and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging, among other things, violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the K-9 officer’s summary-judgment motion asserting qualified immunity, holding that the undisputed facts didn’t establish whether the officer had a reasonable belief that Plaintiff was armed.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the K-9 officer on the excessive-force count and remanded with instructions that the court enters judgment for him on that count. The court explained that while the bodycam video alone may not illuminate whether the officer had a reasonable belief that Plaintiff was armed, the full record clarifies that this assumption was reasonable. Given that, the officer’s use of his dog to seize Plaintiff didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. View "Dillard Putman v. Quentin Harris" on Justia Law

Plaintiff signed a one-year contract to teach criminal justice courses at Spartanburg Methodist College (SMC). Less than a year later, SMC decided not to renew Plaintiff’s contract and terminated her shortly thereafter. Plaintiff brought a mix of state and federal law claims against SMC, essentially arguing that her contract nonrenewal and termination were unlawful. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of SMC on all federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Plaintiff appealed. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Plaintiff accused SMC of discrimination, retaliation, and engaging in an unlawful health inquiry. Under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (Title IX), she accused SMC of retaliation.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that in analyzing the case, it becomes clear that Plaintiff’s retaliation claims cannot succeed. SMC offers nonretaliatory reasons for not renewing Plaintiff’s contract and terminating her employment, and she is unable to demonstrate that SMC’s reasons are pretextual. Further, the court explained that Plaintiff’s claim of pretext is undermined by the fact that the primary decision-makers at SMC were not aware of Plaintiff’s ADA or Title IX-protected activity. Second, any notion of pretext is further dispelled by the fact that SMC’s explanations have been consistent throughout. Moreover, the court explained that Plaintiff cannot show that SMC refused to make an accommodation because she cannot show that she ever properly requested one. Her failure-to-accommodate claim fails for this reason. View "Summer Lashley v. Spartanburg Methodist College" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the sentence he received after pleading guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition in contravention of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). Defendant contends that the district court erred by treating a federal drug offense on which he was convicted in 2014 — aiding and abetting in the distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. Section 2 — as being a “controlled substance offense” that increased his Sentencing Guidelines offense level. Defendant has proffered two principal arguments as to why his 2014 offense is not a “controlled substance offense” under the Guidelines. First, he asserts that aiding and abetting in a drug offense cannot be treated as a “controlled substance offense” in Guidelines calculations. Second, Defendant maintains that, in any event, each and every Section 841(a)(1) distribution offense is disqualified from such treatment.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed and rejected Defendant’s challenge to his sentence. The court wrote that it must reject each of Defendant’s two principal arguments as to why his 2014 offense — aiding and abetting in a 21 U.S.C. Section 841(a)(1) drug distribution offense — is not a “controlled substance offense” under the Sentencing Guidelines. First, the Guidelines’ definition of a “controlled substance offense” includes aiding and abetting in a drug offense. Second, although the Guidelines exclude attempt offenses, Section 841(a)(1) does not criminalize attempt such that an  841(a)(1) distribution offense would be categorically disqualified from being treated as a “controlled substance offense.” View "US v. Patrick Groves" on Justia Law

The Loudoun County Public Schools (the “LCPS”) developed and implemented a “Student Equity Ambassador Program” “to amplify the voices of Students of Color and those who have experienced or witnessed injustices, marginalization, or discrimination.” In response, the parents of several children who attend the LCPS sued the Loudoun County School Board (the “School Board”) on behalf of their minor children, asserting Equal Protection and First Amendment claims, claiming their children are not eligible for the Program due to their race or viewpoint.The district court granted the School Board's motion to dismiss and the parents appealed.On appeal, the Fourth Circuit held that the parents did not have standing to challenge the Student Equity Ambassador Program because their children did not apply for the program or even express an interest in applying. However, the court also held that the parents plausibly alleged that implementing the Program chilled their children’s speech to support their First Amendment claims. Thus, the court vacated the district court's ruling on the parents' First Amendment claims. View "Patti Menders v. Loudoun County School Board" on Justia Law

A superseding indictment charged two defendants, husband and wife, with conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin and five kilograms or more of cocaine and conspiracy to commit money laundering. To address safety concerns, prior to their trial, the district court ordered Defendants to file a joint position as to whether they were vaccinated against COVID-19 or intended to be by the start of the trial. The district court further ordered the government and Defendants to inform the court as to whether they would agree to strike unvaccinated individuals from the jury. Defendants responded that they were not vaccinated and did not intend to be vaccinated. However, they agreed they would test for COVID-19 and provide the test results to the court. Defendants objected to the court’s suggestion of striking unvaccinated jurors for cause. At issue on appeal is whether a district court’s sua sponte decision to strike unvaccinated prospective jurors for cause from a properly assembled venire during the COVID-19 pandemic violates the Sixth Amendment’s fair-cross-section requirement.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendants do not have a Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section challenge. The court explained that the fair-cross-section requirement applies to jury venires, not petit juries. And the district court’s decision to strike unvaccinated jurors based on their perceived inability to serve without creating unnecessary safety risks affected the composition of the petit jury for this particular case, not the individuals represented in the venire from which the petit jury is selected. View "US v. Jose Colon" on Justia Law

Appellants challenged the appointment of Social Security Administration Acting Commissioner Nancy Berryhill under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). They argue that no one may serve as an acting officer under 5 U.S.C. Section 3346(a)(2), which allows acting service while a nomination is pending in the Senate unless that nomination occurred during the initial 210-day period of acting service allowed by 5 U.S.C. Section 3346(a)(1). Appellants assert that Section 3346(a)(2) serves only to toll Section 3346(a)(1)’s time limit and does not authorize an independent period of acting service.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court rejected Appellants’ argument because Section 3346(a)(1) and Section 3346(a)(2) are, by their plain text, disjunctive and independent. Because Berryhill was legally serving as Acting Commissioner, her appointments of the ALJs who decided Appellants’ cases were valid. The court explained that Appellants’ reading of the statute would shift the balance against the President. It would prevent him from designating anyone to serve as an acting officer if he submits a nomination after the 210-day period has elapsed, thus leaving the office vacant for as long as the Senate takes to consider it. View "Barbara Rush v. Kilolo Kijakazi" on Justia Law

A confidential informant tipped off law enforcement that Defendant was dealing drugs out of his residence in Henderson, North Carolina. In the span of a week, officers used the informant to make two controlled purchases of crack cocaine from Defendant at his residence. Officers presented the informant with a photo of Defendant following the buys, and the informant confirmed Defendant sold him the crack cocaine. A jury convicted Defendant of possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon, possessing cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute, and maintaining a place for the purpose of distributing, manufacturing, or using cocaine and marijuana. On appeal, Defendant challenged his convictions on numerous grounds.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that contrary to Defendant’s argument, probable cause did not require the officers to test the crack cocaine after the buys to confirm its illicit nature. In the warrant application, the lead officer stated that he had eight years of law enforcement experience, was assigned to investigate “the possession and sale of illegal controlled substances,” and had received training about controlled substances. The magistrate could reasonably conclude the officer visually identified the substance the informant purchased from Defendant as crack cocaine, even though the warrant application did not say whether the officer tested it.   Further, the court found that here, there was no plain error. The warrant authorized law enforcement to search the duplex and a silver Mercedes. It also authorized officers to seize “Vehicles” and “all 14 electronics.” Officers had an objectively reasonable belief that both the BMW and the cell phone fell within the warrant’s scope. View "US v. Kacey Hicks" on Justia Law

When a deputy sheriff in Lexington County, South Carolina, began to follow a vehicle because he thought the driver was behaving suspiciously, the vehicle sped away, failing to stop when the deputy activated his patrol car’s blue light and siren and leading the deputy on a high-speed chase. After the vehicle crashed, the driver, identified as Defendant, was arrested and a firearm and ammunition were recovered from the front floorboard of the driver’s side of the vehicle. Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and the district court sentenced him to 99 months imprisonment. The 99-month sentence included an enhancement under U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for the use or possession of the firearm “in connection with another felony offense,” namely failure to stop for a blue light. At sentencing, Defendant objected to the enhancement on both procedural and substantive grounds.   The Fourth Circuit agreed. The court explained that the district court erred in relying on the blue-light offense to apply a Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement when Defendant received notice of that basis for the first time at the sentencing hearing. However, the court also concluded that the error was, in the circumstances of this case, harmless. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement when the firearm was lying at Defendant’s feet while he failed to stop for a blue light. View "US v. Jason Dix" on Justia Law

Defendants Southern Coal Corporation and Premium Coal Company, Inc. (collectively, “Southern Coal”) asked the Fourth Circuit to reverse a district court’s order granting a motion to compel compliance with a consent decree (the “Decree”) to which they previously acquiesced. The Decree operated to resolve allegations of approximately 23,693 Clean Water Act violations, pre-litigation, levied against Southern Coal by Plaintiffs Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and the United States of America (collectively, the “government”).   The Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court properly found the Decree’s plain language to mandate compliance with the Clean Water Act and derivative permitting obligations. The court explained that although the plain language of the Decree clearly supports the district court’s conclusion that Southern Coal was obligated to maintain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits—and that alone is sufficient basis to affirm—the court may also consider the circumstances surrounding the Decree and the general nature of the remedy agreed upon. Here, the underlying dispute revolved around tens of thousands of NPDES-permitting and CWA violations. It cannot reasonably be argued that, in formulating the Decree, the parties contemplated undermining its efficacy by authorizing the exact conduct that it sought to remedy. If Southern Coal intended such a backdoor to compliance, then it likely did not negotiate the Decree in “good faith” to forge an agreement that was “fair, reasonable, and in the public interest,” as it purported to do as a Decree signatory. View "US v. Southern Coal Corporation" on Justia Law