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

A Virginia statute required the automatic suspension of residents’ driver’s licenses if they failed to pay certain court fines and fees. in 2016, a group of indigent Virginians who lost their licenses when they were unable to pay court debts initiated a putative class action against the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (“Commissioner”), alleging that the Commonwealth’s license-suspension scheme was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs raised several claims under the Fourteenth Amendment: that the statute’s requirement of automatic suspension without notice or a hearing violated their procedural due process rights; and that the statute’s enforcement against those who were unable, not unwilling, to pay violated both their substantive due process rights and their equal protection rights. As relief, the plaintiffs sought preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the statute’s enforcement and requiring license reinstatement to the “hundreds of thousands of Virginians” with suspended licenses. Plaintiffs then petitioned for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988(b), which provides that the district court, “in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party” in Section 1983 actions “a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.”   The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees and remanded. The court held that Plaintiffs here prevailed” in every sense needed to make them eligible for a fee award. The court explained that the named plaintiffs sought not only reinstatement of their own licenses but also class certification, a declaratory judgment that Section 46.2-395 was unconstitutional, and hence permanent license reinstatement for hundreds of thousands of Virginians. Those are precisely the kinds of considerations that bear on the “extent of a plaintiff’s success” – a critical factor in assessing a reasonable fee award in any fee litigation under Section 1988. View "Damian Stinnie v. Richard Holcomb" on Justia Law

John Telly King was murdered by a fellow inmate. King’s estate sued the South Carolina Department of Corrections prison guards on duty and their supervisors, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to King’s safety and medical needs and, therefore, responsible for his death. A magistrate judge disagreed, granting summary judgment to the defendants, and King appealed.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the prison guards on duty failed to violate a clearly established right so are entitled to qualified immunity. And Plaintiff failed to allege, or raise a disputed material fact of, any individual involvement by the supervisor Defendants. The court explained that nowhere does Plaintiff identify how each defendant violated the constitution. This is a prerequisite to a supervisory-liability claim. Nor does Plaintiff present a material dispute about any individual Defendant’s knowledge. Instead, Plaintiff only claims that Defendants “either maintained actual or constructive knowledge of the risk” (whatever that risk may be). The court wrote that this boilerplate conclusion—lacking defendant specificity and factual support— does not state a claim for relief or allow a plaintiff to get past summary judgment. View "David King v. Timothy Riley" on Justia Law

Defendant is fifteen years into his twenty-year prison sentence for conspiring to distribute crack cocaine. A few years after he was sentenced, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the crack-to-powder cocaine disparity. If sentenced today, Smith’s mandatory minimum would be half his current sentence. Under the retroactivity provisions of the First Step Act, Defendant moved for a sentence reduction to time served. The district court denied his motion, determining that twenty years remained appropriate. Defendant appealed, claiming among other things that the district court miscalculated his Guidelines range and that our recent decision in United States v. Swain, 49 F.4th 398 (4th Cir. 2022), reveals substantive errors in the district court’s analysis.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that “The Fair Sentencing Act and First Step Act, together, are strong remedial statutes, meant to rectify disproportionate and racially disparate sentencing penalties.” The district court considered these remedial aims, as well as all other nonfrivolous arguments, before exercising its broad discretion to deny sentencing relief. Further, while the court recognized the disparity between Defendant’s new Guidelines range and his current sentence, the district court properly explained why it remained substantively reasonable. View "US v. Danny Smith" on Justia Law

Brothers pleaded guilty to conspiring to participate in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act. The district court ordered the forfeiture of various real properties and financial accounts linked to the RICO conspiracy. Several third parties came forward to claim an interest in one or more of the forfeited assets, including the brothers’ sister, Ilana Bangiyeva (“Bangiyeva”), and one brother’s wife, Irina Alishayeva (“Alishayeva”). The court rejected most of Bangiyeva’s claimed ownership interests. As to Alishayeva the court granted a life estate in and the exclusive use of one of the properties after finding that she owned a one-third interest in that property as a tenant in common with the Government, which owned the remaining two-thirds interest. Bangiyeva appealed.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the final order of forfeiture in that respect. Additionally, the Government cross-appealed, asserting that the district court erred as a matter of law in granting Alishayeva a life estate in the relevant property at the expense of the Government’s majority ownership interest. The court agreed with the Government and vacated that part of the final order of forfeiture and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that in granting Alishayeva full and exclusive use of the 110-37 69th Ave. property for the remainder of her life and marriage, the district court accorded the Government less than the full bundle of property rights that it would otherwise be entitled to as a tenant in common under New York state law. The district court was without legal authority to do so. View "US v. Ilana Bangiyeva" on Justia Law

Defendant received a 13-year sentence for Hobbs Act robbery and a related firearm offense. The Fourth Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence on procedural grounds and remanded for resentencing. At resentencing, the district court increased Defendant’s sentence by six months and ran that term consecutively to an intervening state sentence on unrelated charges. Defendant argued that he was resentenced vindictively as punishment for successfully exercising his right to appeal.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court expressly based its increased sentence on objective information post-dating Defendant’s initial sentencing – namely, Defendant’s new state convictions and his lengthy disciplinary record while incarcerated. The district court provided a careful explanation of its decision to increase Defendant’s sentence and run it consecutively to a newly imposed sentence. And it grounded this decision in objective developments post-dating Defendant’s initial sentencing. That suffices to dispel any presumption of vindictiveness that otherwise would arise. View "US v. Christopher Singletary" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court’s judgment sentencing as a career offender under Sentencing Guidelines section 4B1.1(a), in that Defendant had seven prior South Carolina felony convictions supportive of such an enhancement (including, as relevant here, four South Carolina felony convictions for distribution of cocaine base). The court then sentenced Defendant to 120 months in prison for the distribution offense — plus 60 consecutive months for the firearm offense — for an aggregate prison term totaling 180 months. On appeal, Defendant pursued four challenges to his convictions and sentence.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the “distribution” offense of South Carolina Code section 44- 53-375(B) does not criminalize the attempt offense of “attempted distribution,” but rather the completed offense of “attempted transfer” Accordingly, the court ruled that a section 44-53-375(B) distribution offense is not categorically disqualified from being treated as a Guidelines “controlled substance offense.” As a result of that ruling, Defendant’s contention that four of his prior drug distribution convictions — as punished by section 44-53-375(B) of the South Carolina Code — is without merit. The district court thus did not err by deeming Defendant to be a Guidelines career offender. View "US v. Quintin Davis" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of two crimes arising out of an elaborate ploy to intimidate an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agent into halting her efforts to collect his delinquent tax debt. On appeal, Defendant challenged the validity of both convictions along with three enhancements the district court imposed at sentencing.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that it found no reversible error in the district court’s analysis. Although Section 2J1.2(b)(1)(B) requires any personal injury to be “physical,” the Guideline does not limit the term “property damage” in the same way. And the Guideline explicitly encompasses “threatening” to cause property damage. Thus, we will not disturb the district court’s determination that, by filing a lien against the property, because Defendant “caused or threatened to cause” damage to their property. Finally, Reed contends the district court erred by applying a two-level enhancement to Count 2 for conduct “otherwise extensive in scope, planning, or preparation.” The district court relied on Defendant’s efforts to convince Nelson not to garnish his wages, his numerous frivolous legal filings in multiple States, and his “campaign of serving notarized documents on the agent” purporting to show she “personally wronged him” and owed him “millions of dollars.” View "US v. Jeffrey Reed" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 1855 after he started a brush fire that burned 70 acres of the Nantahala National Forest in western North Carolina. Defendant asserted his innocence, claiming he did not act with a culpable mental state because he thought he was setting the fire on his family’s land, not on federal government property. His arguments required the Fourth Circuit to address the scope of Section 1855’s mens rea requirement.   The Fourth Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded. The court concluded that specific knowledge of federal ownership is not required for conviction. Therefore, the Government did not have to prove that Defendant knew he was on federal land or intended to burn federal land. But the Government did have to prove that Defendant acted willfully, and an honest mistake of fact about whether he was burning brush on his own property would be a viable defense. The district court excluded testimony about Defendant’s belief that he was on his family’s property when he set the fire, thereby preventing him from presenting his primary defense to the jury. The court explained that the jury, not the Fourth Circuit, must assess the credibility of the proffered testimony and weigh it against the Government’s evidence to make the judgment regarding whether Defendant made a factual mistake sufficient to cast a reasonable doubt on the willfulness of his actions in setting the fire. View "US v. Casey Evans" on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked as a Telecommunications Network Coordinator for the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC). After VDOC fired Plaintiff for declining a random drug test, Garrett sued, alleging that VDOC employees violated his Fourth Amendment rights by applying VDOC’s drug testing policy to him. Defendants asserted qualified immunity and moved to dismiss. The district court denied the motion, concluding that general constitutional principles clearly establish Plaintiff’s right to be free from suspicionless drug testing.   The Fourth Circuit reversed. The court wrote that based on the facts as alleged in the complaint here, VDOC has some degree of government interest in drug testing Plaintiff. Whether that interest amounts to a “special need” within the meaning of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is a debatable legal question. By baking into its analysis the absence of a sufficient special need, the district court glossed over the central question for immunity purposes: whether every reasonable official in Defendants’ position would understand that VDOC’s proffered interests were not substantial enough to override Plaintiff’s privacy interest. In view of existing law, the constitutionality of Defendants’ drug testing is simply not “beyond debate.” View "Jacoby Garrett v. Harold Clarke" on Justia Law

Defendant appeald his conviction for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). He contends that his guilty plea was invalid and that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.   The Fouth Circuit concluded that the district court did not plainly err when it accepted Defendant’s guilty plea. However, the court vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing based on the Government’s concession that Defendant should not have received two criminal history points for being on probation. The court rejected Defendant’s other contentions of sentencing error. The court explained that the district court did not err in accepting Defendant’s guilty plea, in applying the U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement at sentencing, in finding that Defendant’s state conviction supported a base offense level of twenty under U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), or in making certain factual findings at sentencing. View "US v. Montes Miller" on Justia Law