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

Habeas Petitioner was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for thirty years in South Carolina state court for a number of crimes he committed in 1987, including two murders. But in 2004, the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services (“Department”) notified Petitioner that he would never be eligible to seek parole because of an earlier armed-robbery conviction. Petitioner contends that, in reaching this conclusion, the Department violated his federal due-process rights because, in his view, a temporary change in South Carolina parole-eligibility law in 1994 permanently “vested” his parole eligibility, such that the Department could not legally determine him ineligible to ever seek parole. The district court rejected Petitioner’s contention.   The Fourth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court explained that there is no dispute that Petitioner received a statement of reasons why he was not eligible for parole. The 2004 letter from the Department makes clear that Petitioner is ineligible because his 1992 murder convictions followed a 1979 armed-robbery conviction, and pursuant to S.C. Code Section 24-21-640, a defendant convicted of a violent crime who has previously been convicted of another violent crime is not eligible for parole. Accordingly, Petitioner received the limited process required by the Federal Constitution for a parole-eligibility determination. View "Thomas Torrence v. Scott Lewis" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to two counts — conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) for discharging a firearm during and in relation to that conspiracy. Under subsequent controlling precedent, Defendant now stands convicted of, and imprisoned for, conduct that does not violate Section 924(c) and in fact, is not criminal. Accordingly, he brought this 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 motion asking the district court to vacate his Section 924(c) conviction. The district court refused to do so, and Defendant appealed.   The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate Defendant’s Section 924(c) conviction. The court explained that when Defendant pled guilty in 2012 and was sentenced in 2013, the Supreme Court had implicitly approved Section 924(c)’s residual clause. Only several years later, in 2015, did the Court in Johnson cause a sea change in the law, disapproving its prior precedent upholding similar residual clauses against void-for-vagueness challenges. And it was not until 2019 that Davis dealt the final blow to Section 924(c)’s residual clause. The court wrote that Defendant’s case falls squarely within Reed’s “novelty” framework, and so he has shown cause for his procedural default. Further, Defendant’s Section 924(c) conviction subjects him to imprisonment for conduct that the law does not make criminal. Because the error here worked to Defendant’s “actual and substantial disadvantage,” he has established prejudice to excuse his procedural default. View "US v. Donzell McKinney" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for one count of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1951, and one count of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 924(c) and 924(j)(1). In a pretrial motion to suppress, Defendant argued that certain statements he made to detectives and witness identifications should be suppressed. The district court disagreed, admitting the evidence. Defendant was convicted.On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Defendant's robbery and firearm convictions. While the district court erred in admitting Defendant's statements and the witness identifications, in light of the admissible evidence, any error was harmless. The court also rejected Defendant's claim that the cumulative error rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. Finally, the Fourth Circuit held that the district court properly instructed the jury that a Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(3)(A). View "US v. Demarcus Ivey" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec 922(g)(1) after he fled a traffic stop. The district court sentenced him to 99 months’ imprisonment, which included an enhancement under U.S.S.G. Sec 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. For his procedural argument, Defendant argued that he was not given the required notice of the enhancement because the presentence report identified “another felony offense” as the basis for the enhancement. For his substantive argument, Defendant argued that he did not possess the firearm found in the vehicle in connection with the blue-light offense. The district court rejected Defendant's arguments.The Fourth Circuit affirmed Defendant's firearm conviction and sentence, finding that although the district court erred in determining Defendant was provided with the required notice, the error was harmless given the circumstances of the case. View "US v. Jason Dix" on Justia Law

A 90-year-old North Carolina law makes it a crime to publish a “derogatory report” about candidates for public office where the speaker “know[s] such report to be false or” acts “in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.” N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 163-274(a)(9). Plaintiffs asserted this statute violates the First Amendment. The district court denied a preliminary injunction because it determined plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits.   The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. The court reasoned that the district attorney offered no examples of this Act’s “legitimate applications”—much less applications unrelated to speech—nor has she shown any such applications should mitigate the Court’s concerns about the law’s chilling effects on truthful speech during political campaigns. Second, even assuming the Act reaches only false statements and that Garrison’s seeming approval of certain criminal libel statutes remains good law, the Court would still conclude this Act fails constitutional scrutiny because it draws impermissible content-based distinctions in identifying which speech to criminalize. View "Juliette Grimmett v. Nancy Freeman" on Justia Law

This case asks whether a town’s alleged policy that bans video livestreaming certain interactions with law enforcement violates the First Amendment. It also asks whether a police officer who, during a traffic stop, attempted to stop a passenger from livestreaming the encounter may be successfully sued under Section 1983. Plaintiff sued under Section 1983. He sued the officers in their official capacities—effectively suing the Town of Winterville—for allegedly having a policy that prohibits recording and livestreaming public police interactions in violation of the First Amendment. He also sued an Officer in his individual capacity. The district court awarded Defendants judgment on the pleadings after finding that the policy did not violate the First Amendment. The court dismissed the individual-capacity claim.   The Fourth Circuit vacated in part and affirmed in part. The court reasoned that Plaintiffs seeking redress under Section 1983 for a violation of their constitutional rights must walk through a narrow gate. The doctrines of qualified immunity and Monell liability for local governments substantially diminish their chances. Here, faithful application of the doctrines leads to divergent results. Plaintiff’s has sufficiently alleged that the Town has a policy barring livestreaming one’s own traffic stop that violates the First Amendment. He must now show this policy exists. And, if it does, the Town will have the chance to prove that it does not violate the First Amendment. On the other hand, although the Officer was allegedly acting under the policy that plausibly violates the First Amendment, Plaintiff’s claim against him in his personal capacity fails. View "Dijon Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with numerous child pornography crimes. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence. After a jury later convicted Defendant on all counts, the court sentenced Defendant to a term of 240 months imprisonment and to a life term of supervised release. As part of Defendant’s supervised release, the court imposed special conditions, including prohibitions against (1) viewing sexually explicit images of minors, (2) engaging in employment or volunteer activities with access to computers, (3) viewing adult pornography, and (4) using any video game system that would allow communication with other people. On appeal, Defendant argued that the initial warrant authorizing a search of his residence was overbroad and that, therefore, the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his residence. He also contends that the court procedurally and substantively erred by imposing a 240-month term of imprisonment and the above-stated special conditions of supervised release.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment with respect to the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress, his term of imprisonment, and the special condition of supervised release that prohibits Defendant from viewing sexually explicit images of minors. However, the court held that the district court erred by failing to explain the other challenged special conditions of supervised release. The court, therefore, vacated these conditions as procedurally unreasonable, and remand that portion of Defendant’s sentence to the district court for further consideration. View "US v. Christopher Sueiro" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was an inmate at Sussex I State Prison (SISP) in 2017. A female correctional officer at SISP charged Plaintiff with a disciplinary offense, alleging that he directed lewd behavior toward her in the prison showers. Plaintiff denied the allegation, contending that security-camera footage would vindicate him. Subsequent to what Plaintiff alleged was a defective disciplinary-hearing process, prison officials found that he committed the offense and transferred him to a maximum-security facility. Based on the defects that Plaintiff perceived in the hearing process and subsequent transfer, he commenced a pro se civil action, levying a procedural due process claim and a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants collectively, the “Prison Officials”). The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim, then granted summary judgment—pre-discovery—in favor of the Prison Officials on the remaining First Amendment retaliation claim. Defendant appealed.   The Fourth Circuit reversed. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment pre-discovery. Plaintiff properly received a Roseboro notice, explaining his rights to file competing affidavits and other evidence in response to the Prison Officials’ pre-discovery summary judgment motion. Plaintiff failed to respond with such evidentiary filings—or with a Rule 56(d) affidavit. But the district court was on fair notice of potential disputes as to the sufficiency of the summary judgment record. Accordingly, the court wrote that Plaintiff plausibly alleged a violation of his procedural due process rights such that dismissal at the pleading stage was inappropriate. Pre-discovery summary judgment on his First Amendment retaliation claim was likewise inappropriate. View "Emmanuel Shaw v. T. Foreman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Alive Church of the Nazarene, Inc. (the “Church”) purchased 17 acres of land — zoned primarily for agricultural use — on which the Church sought to conduct religious assemblies. After Defendant Prince William County, Virginia (the “County”), denied the Church’s request to worship on its property before the Church complied with the zoning requirements, the Church initiated a lawsuit in district court. By its Complaint, the Church has alleged six claims against the County — three claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), and three federal constitutional claims. For reasons explained in its Memorandum Opinion of November 2021, the district court dismissed those claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that allowing religious institutions to conduct worship services does not further the purpose of the Agricultural Zoning Ordinance — that is, to promote farming. Specific to the Church, allowing services would not increase its ability to continue farming its land. Accordingly, the court wrote it cannot agree with the Church that it is similarly situated to farm wineries and limited-license breweries with regard to the Ordinance. The Church has failed to meet its initial burden of proof by providing a similarly situated comparator with which it has been treated unequally, and has thereby failed to state an RLUIPA equal terms claim. View "Alive Church of the Nazarene, Inc. v. Prince William County, Virginia" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs own a beach house in Dare County, North Carolina. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dare County banned nonresident property owners from entering the county. As a result, Plaintiffs could not reach their beach house for forty-five days. In response, they sued Dare County, alleging that their property was taken without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. After the district court found that the ban was not a Fifth Amendment taking and dismissed Plaintiffs’ suit for failure to state a claim, Plaintiffs appealed.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the ban did not physically appropriate Plaintiffs’ beach house. And though it restricted their ability to use the house, compensation is not required under the ad hoc balancing test that determines the constitutionality of most use restrictions. The court further explained that Dare County’s order is neither a physical appropriation, a use restriction that renders the property valueless, nor a taking under Penn Central. The effects of the order were temporary, Plaintiffs had a chance to occupy their property before it took effect, and while the order was operative they could still exercise significant ownership rights over their property. View "Joseph Blackburn, Jr. v. Dare County" on Justia Law