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

Ali Al-Timimi, a respected lecturer at an Islamic center in Virginia, became acquainted with a group of young Muslim men who engaged in activities including paintball, which some saw as preparation for “jihad in the form of combat.” While Al-Timimi did not directly participate in these preparations, he offered advice on discretion after FBI attention. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Al-Timimi attended a gathering where he urged attendees to repent, leave the United States, and join militant groups abroad, including Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET) in Pakistan. His statements inspired several individuals to make concrete plans to travel overseas for training, though he did not provide operational details or set timelines. Some group members subsequently traveled to Pakistan but did not engage in combat.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia indicted and convicted Al-Timimi on multiple counts, including conspiracy, solicitation, and aiding terrorist groups. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and other consecutive terms. Over two decades, his case saw numerous appeals and remands, including vacatur of certain counts based on changes in law regarding “crimes of violence” (as in Johnson v. United States and United States v. Davis). Ultimately, Al-Timimi appealed his remaining convictions (Counts 2–6, 9, and 10), asserting First Amendment protection for his speech.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Al-Timimi’s speech constituted unprotected incitement, solicitation, or facilitation of criminal acts. The court held that his speech, though inflammatory and disturbing, did not incite imminent lawless action nor did it intentionally solicit or assist a specific crime. As his advocacy did not meet the narrow exceptions to First Amendment protection, the court vacated Al-Timimi’s remaining convictions and remanded for judgments of acquittal. View "US v. Al-Timimi" on Justia Law

Two plainclothes detectives in Baltimore, acting on a tip about drug activity, observed Robert Gary Moore and another individual near a parked vehicle. When approached, Moore dropped a plastic bag and fled but was apprehended. The police recovered the bag, which was later analyzed in a laboratory report stating it contained cocaine. During Moore’s trial for possession and possession with intent to distribute, the State introduced two chain-of-custody reports: one disclosed before trial and another (the ECU report) disclosed only mid-trial. The latter did not mention the chemist who performed the analysis, raising questions about whether the correct bag was tested. Moore’s counsel did not object to the late disclosure or use the discrepancy in his defense. Moore was convicted by a jury.After his conviction was affirmed on appeal by Maryland’s intermediate appellate court, Moore sought postconviction relief in Maryland state court, arguing that the State’s belated disclosure of the ECU report violated his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland and that his counsel was ineffective. The Maryland trial court initially granted relief under Brady but, upon remand from the intermediate appellate court for further factfinding, ultimately denied both claims, finding that disclosure during trial did not constitute suppression under Brady. Moore’s application for leave to appeal this denial was rejected.Moore then filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The district court found a Brady violation and granted habeas relief, ordering Moore’s conviction vacated unless retried within sixty days. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed that the state court had unreasonably applied federal law and that a Brady violation warranted habeas relief. However, it held that federal district courts lack authority to vacate state convictions directly and thus vacated the district court’s order, remanding for a new order consistent with the proper bounds of federal habeas relief. View "Moore v. State of Maryland" on Justia Law

Adrian Roberts, a military veteran suffering from severe mental health issues, was the subject of an involuntary commitment order after his wife raised concerns about his safety and possession of weapons. Law enforcement officers, including a specially trained response team, attempted to execute the order, initially trying to persuade Adrian to leave his home peacefully. When he refused, the team forcibly entered his residence. Shortly after entry, Deputy Evans shot and killed Adrian. The circumstances surrounding the shooting were disputed: Evans claimed Adrian charged at officers with a machete, while Adrian’s wife alleged he was shot in the back while facing away.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina reviewed the case after Adrian’s wife brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and unlawful entry. The district court granted Evans qualified immunity and summary judgment on the unlawful entry claim but denied both on the excessive force claim. The court found that genuine disputes of material fact existed, particularly regarding whether Adrian posed an immediate threat or was resisting arrest, and relied on the autopsy report suggesting Adrian may have been shot from behind. Because these factual disputes remained, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find Evans violated Adrian’s clearly established rights.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered whether it had jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and summary judgment on the excessive force claim. The Fourth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction because the district court’s decision was based on unresolved factual disputes rather than purely legal questions. The court emphasized it could not weigh evidence or resolve factual disputes at this stage, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Roberts v. Evans" on Justia Law

The case concerns the fatal shooting of Kwamena Ocran by four Gaithersburg Police Department officers in January 2021. Ocran, who had recently been released from prison and was reported by a confidential informant to be armed, was surveilled by the officers after the informant indicated Ocran might attempt to sell a handgun. When Ocran left an apartment with the informant and was approached by the officers, he fled. The officers pursued him, and during the chase, multiple officers reported seeing a muzzle flash and believed Ocran fired a weapon in their direction. The officers collectively discharged 27 rounds, resulting in Ocran’s death. Forensic evidence revealed Ocran was shot multiple times in the back, and a handgun was found near his body, though no evidence indicated it had been fired.After discovery, Melody Cooper, Ocran’s mother and personal representative, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment and rejected their claim of qualified immunity, finding genuine disputes of material fact existed—particularly regarding whether Ocran pointed or fired his weapon at the officers. The court also denied the officers’ motion for reconsideration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the officers’ appeal to the extent it challenged the district court’s findings of disputed material facts, as such findings are not reviewable under the collateral order doctrine. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that, accepting the undisputed facts, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from deadly force when fleeing and not posing a significant threat was clearly established at the time of the incident. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including a jury trial. View "Cooper v. Doyle" on Justia Law

Several individuals attended a Loudoun County School Board meeting intending to speak during the public-comment period about recent news involving the Board’s reinstatement of a student who had previously been arrested and allegedly threatened another student. They wished to express concerns regarding the Board’s handling of school safety, particularly in relation to this specific student. During the meeting, the School Board Chair interrupted several of these individuals, invoking a Board policy that prohibits speakers from targeting, criticizing, or attacking individual students during public comments, and advised that such concerns should instead be directed privately to school officials.After these interruptions, the affected individuals filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Their complaint alleged that, as applied to them, the Board’s policy constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment, and that the policy was unconstitutionally vague. They sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the policy against them. The district court denied both requests, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on either claim. The court found that the policy was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restriction appropriate to the limited public forum of the school board’s meetings, and that the interruptions were consistent with the policy’s facial requirements, not discriminatory based on viewpoint. Furthermore, the court determined that the policy language—prohibiting comments that “target, criticize, or attack individual students”—was not unconstitutionally vague, providing sufficient notice and guidance for enforcement. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Platt v. Mansfield" on Justia Law

A dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, the defendant traveled from the U.S. to Pakistan in 2009, along with four others, with the intent to join jihad in Afghanistan. Upon arrival, the group attempted to make contact with terrorist organizations and made efforts to cross into Afghanistan. Pakistani authorities arrested them in Sargodha, Pakistan, and subsequently tried and convicted them on terrorism-related offenses. The defendant served approximately ten years in a Pakistani prison. After completing his sentence, he was extradited to the United States, where he faced federal charges arising from the same underlying conduct.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia arraigned the defendant and, after he waived his Speedy Trial Act rights, considered his motion to dismiss the indictment on Sixth Amendment speedy trial grounds. The motion argued that the government’s delay in seeking his extradition and prosecution in the U.S. violated his constitutional rights. The district court denied the motion, finding that, although the length of the delay was significant, the government made reasonably diligent and good-faith efforts to secure his return, and the remaining factors weighed against finding a violation. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the speedy trial ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision, applying the four-factor balancing test from Barker v. Wingo. The appellate court agreed that only the length of the delay favored the defendant, but reasoned that the government’s efforts, the defendant’s own conduct in resisting extradition, and the absence of actual prejudice outweighed that factor. The court held there was no Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation and affirmed the conviction. View "US v. Chaudhry" on Justia Law

Drug task force officers in West Virginia observed a car with expired registration, dark window tint, and a malfunctioning taillight, driven by Cornelious Johnson—an individual known to them from a prior drug conviction and currently on federal supervised release. The officers watched as Johnson and his passenger interacted with a man, Jackie Byrd, at an apartment complex previously associated with drug investigations. Although the officers suspected a drug transaction, they did not witness any exchange of items. Shortly after, Tremayne Hawkins entered the back seat, and the car left the complex. Officer Stanley, informed by the task force, stopped the car for the observed traffic violations and, suspecting drug activity, separated and questioned the occupants about their interaction with Byrd. Citing minor inconsistencies in their answers, Stanley called for a K9 unit, which alerted to drugs. A subsequent search yielded a firearm on Hawkins, who admitted to being prohibited from possessing one due to a prior conviction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied Hawkins’ motion to suppress the firearm, holding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop based on the area’s reputation, Johnson’s prior conviction, the observed interaction with Byrd, and the inconsistent statements from the occupants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. The Fourth Circuit held that none of the cited factors—alone or in combination—provided reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. The court emphasized that presence in an area associated with prior investigations, a dated conviction, innocuous interactions, and minor, reconcilable inconsistencies in statements did not collectively amount to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "US v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

Christopher Arthur was investigated after founding a business that sold military gear and later provided training and manuals on tactics including the use of explosives. The FBI became involved after a customer, Joshua Blessed, died in a shootout and was found to possess pipe bombs and Arthur’s manuals. Subsequently, an undercover informant, “Buckshot,” sought training from Arthur, who instructed him on fortifying his home and making explosive devices, knowing Buckshot claimed he wanted to use such tactics against federal agents. Arthur was arrested in January 2022 and a search of his home revealed illegal firearms and improvised explosives.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina indicted Arthur under 18 U.S.C. § 842(p)(2)(B) for teaching explosives use with knowledge of criminal intent, and on additional firearms and explosives charges. Arthur moved to dismiss the primary count, arguing the statute was facially overbroad under the First Amendment. The district court denied the motion, finding the statute’s knowledge requirement limited its scope to conduct integral to criminal acts, not protected speech. After a three-day trial, the jury found Arthur guilty on all counts. At sentencing, the court applied the U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4 terrorism enhancement, increasing his guidelines range, and sentenced Arthur to a total of 300 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that 18 U.S.C. § 842(p)(2)(B) is not unconstitutionally overbroad, concluding that the statute targets speech integral to criminal conduct and does not criminalize a substantial amount of protected expressive activity. The Fourth Circuit also found no reversible error in applying the terrorism enhancement, and determined any alleged guidelines error was harmless given the district court’s alternative sentencing rationale. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "US v. Arthur" on Justia Law

An Indian professor employed at a public university in North Carolina applied for tenure after a probationary period, but his initial application was denied following negative evaluations from colleagues concerning his teaching, mentorship, and administrative performance. Several years later, the same professor reapplied and was granted tenure. After receiving tenure, he sued various university officials, alleging that the original denial was the result of racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as retaliation for his non-traditional teaching methods in violation of the First Amendment. His complaint focused on negative statements and actions by two specific colleagues, while also asserting that other officials enabled or failed to remedy alleged bias.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court found that the plaintiff’s allegations of racial discrimination were unsupported by facts connecting any defendant’s actions to race, and that his First Amendment retaliation claim failed to identify protected speech or a causal link between such speech and the tenure decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s allegations did not plausibly suggest he was treated differently than similarly situated colleagues because of his race, as required for Equal Protection and § 1981 claims. The court also concluded that the complaint failed to plausibly allege protected speech or retaliation under the First Amendment. The Fourth Circuit emphasized the limited judicial role in reviewing academic tenure decisions and declined to address qualified immunity, as no plausible claim was stated. Thus, the district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Katti v. Arden" on Justia Law

The case centers on Jessie Glass, whose estranged wife, April, reported to law enforcement that she witnessed a significant quantity of child sexual abuse material on Glass’s phone. April provided specific details about the alleged material, the devices Glass owned, and information for accessing his online accounts. Detective Jason Lowrance investigated April’s claims, which included reviewing her prior allegations against Glass as well as Glass’s history of previous investigations for similar offenses. Some of these earlier investigations had been closed without charges or with findings labeled “[u]nfounded.” Lowrance then prepared affidavits for search warrants to search Glass’s home and electronics, securing evidence of child sexual abuse material.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied Glass’s motion to suppress, which argued that Lowrance recklessly omitted information in his warrant affidavits that would have undermined April’s credibility and thus probable cause. The district court found that any omissions were not made with intent to mislead or recklessness, and that the omitted facts would not have altered the probable cause determination. A jury later found Glass guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment and imposed financial penalties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the appeal. It held that Lowrance’s affidavits contained sufficient detail to support probable cause, and that the omitted information about April’s credibility would not have defeated probable cause. The appellate court also rejected Glass’s double jeopardy argument, finding the convictions and sentences were based on distinct conduct. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s imposition of a $5,000 special assessment, concluding the required statutory considerations were adequately addressed. The judgment was affirmed in all respects. View "US v. Glass" on Justia Law