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

The Fourth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability to petitioner on the issue of whether his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the State's introduction and use of prison-conditions evidence at the penalty phase. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to state officials, concluding that the state postconviction court properly applied Strickland v. Washington to petitioner's ineffective-assistance claim, and in doing so, it was not unreasonable in finding no reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel's errors, the jury would not have sentenced petitioner to death.Applying the prejudice analysis in Sigmon v. Stirling, 956 F.3d 183, 193 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1094 (2021), the court did not think it was unreasonable for the state court to have found that the substantial aggravating evidence overcame petitioner's offered mitigation case based on his mental health. With that conclusion firmly in mind, the state court weighed the effect of the prison-conditions evidence and determined that there was a relative equality of presentation by both sides on this evidence and that the defense scored as many points if not more than the State. In this case, the court could not say that the state court unreasonably applied Strickland when it weighed the prison-conditions evidence and found its effect on the verdict inconsequential. Furthermore, petitioner's challenges to the state court's consideration of his mitigation evidence are unavailing. The court also rejected petitioner's contention that the state court unreasonably discounted his mental health evidence; nor did the state court unreasonably conflate the adaptability and prison-conditions testimony. Finally, the court did not fault the state court for not expressly considering the jury's deadlock in its prejudice analysis. View "Wood v. Stirling" on Justia Law

Officers approached Buster as he was walking; 30 minutes earlier, the officers had responded to “a domestic assault where a firearm discharged in the air.” The officers believed Buster matched descriptions of the assailant and that he was the person they had seen outside the victim’s apartment earlier. Buster declined to stop and eventually ran but tripped. The officers tackled him. Buster was wearing a cross-body bag. The officers pulled the bag to Buster’s back and handcuffed him. Buster said the strap was choking him. An officer cut the strap, removed the bag, which felt “[h]ard to the touch,” then opened the bag and found a gun and ammunition. The officers questioned Buster without giving the Miranda warnings. At the police station, an officer gave Buster the Miranda warnings, and elicited “‘essentially’ the same material discussed in the pre-Miranda interview.”The government agreed not to use the pre-Miranda statements. The court suppressed Buster’s post-Miranda statements, as “the product of an impermissible two-step interview tactic” but concluded the initial stop was valid and that “the pat-down of Buster’s person and the search of his bag were reasonable.” Buster was sentenced to 51 months’ imprisonment. The Fourth Circuit reversed. The “Terry” exception does not cover a warrantless search of a bag recently possessed by a person who was—by the time the bag was opened— handcuffed and face-down on the ground. View "United States v. Buster" on Justia Law

The 2021 South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act bans abortions after an ultrasound detects a “fetal heartbeat,” usually around the sixth week of pregnancy, before the “viability threshold” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Act includes exceptions for medical emergencies, rape, and incest and requires abortion providers to “perform an obstetric ultrasound,” display the ultrasound images to the pregnant woman, and "record a written medical description of the ultrasound images of the unborn child’s fetal heartbeat.” The Act provides a private cause of action for a woman to sue an abortion provider if the abortion was performed or induced in violation of the Act or the woman “was not given the information” abortion providers are required to disclose before an abortion procedure.The district court enjoined the Act's enforcement. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The abortion providers suffered an injury in fact sufficient to establish standing. The defendants acknowledged that the six-week “fetal heartbeat” abortion ban is unconstitutional. The district court reasonably determined that, notwithstanding the Act’s severability clause, its provisions were not severable. The function of each of the provisions remaining in the Act after the removal of the six-week abortion ban reveals that the entire statute was designed to carry out the ban. View "Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Then-lieutenant Hasson was arrested at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters. Agents found 196 Tramadol pills in Hasson’s backpack and another 106 in his desk. A search of Hasson’s residence uncovered another 122 Tramadol pills; 15 firearms; silencers; hundreds of rounds of ammunition, hormones, and steroids. Hasson had Tramadol in his bloodstream. The government alleged Hasson was “a domestic terrorist,” contemplating “biological attacks followed by attack on food supply” and “a bombing/sniper campaign.” His emails stated: Looking to Russia ... or any land that despises the west’s liberalism. … appropriate individual targets, to bring greatest impact. Professors, DR’s, Politian’s, Judges, leftists in general. He compiled manifestos of murderers and terrorists and information about explosives and other weapons.Hasson was charged with unlawful possession of unregistered firearm silencers, 26 U.S.C. 5861(d); unlawful possession of firearm silencers unidentified by serial number, 5861(i); possession of firearms by an unlawful user of and addict to a controlled substance, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3); and possession of a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. 844(a). The district court rejected Hasson's argument that Section 922(g)(3)'s phrases “unlawful user” and “addicted to” were unconstitutionally vague on their face and increased Hasson’s Guidelines range (U.S.S.G. 3A1.4), concluding that his offense was intended to promote a federal crime of terrorism. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that Section 922(g)(3) is facially vague and that Section 3A1.4 cannot apply because he was not convicted of a federal crime of terrorism. View "United States v. Hasson" on Justia Law

Ali sought to pursue 42 U.S.C. 1983 proceedings challenging as unconstitutional an executive order of Maryland’s Governor that prohibits boycotts of Israel by business entities that bid on the state’s procurement contracts. According to the Initial Complaint, “Ali is a computer software engineer who wishes to submit bids for government software project contracts but is barred from doing so due to the presence of mandatory ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clauses.”The district court dismissed with prejudice Ali’s lawsuit for want of Article III standing to sue. The Fourth Circuit affirmed but modified the judgment to provide that the dismissal is without prejudice. The court first disagreed with Ali’s interpretation of the Order. The Order indicates that if a business entity has engaged in anti-Israel national origin discrimination in the process of preparing a bid for a state procurement contract, the entity is barred from being awarded the contract; if the entity has engaged in a boycott of Israel entirely unrelated to the bid formation process, the Order is of no relevance. The court rejected Ali’s argument that the certification requirement constitutes an unconstitutionally vague loyalty oath. The Order does not require the entity to pledge any loyalty to Israel or profess any other beliefs. View "Ali v. Hogan" on Justia Law

West Virginia State Troopers Elliott and Cornelius received three 911 calls about Crumbley. Two different callers stated that Crumbley was armed and dangerous and keeping his family hostage. Another caller stated Crumbley made threats about shooting the police. The troopers, heading to Crumbley’s property, discussed Crumbley’s rumored drug connections. Crumbley came out of the house screaming and threatened a shootout. He had nothing in his hands but threatened to get a weapon. Crumbley went between the yard where the troopers were and the house, threatening to get a weapon and shoot the troopers. Crumbley pulled down his pants to expose his genitals while spinning in a circle. Crumbley then got a shovel, threatened the troopers with it, then ran, throwing the shovel. Cornelius fell in the snow. When Elliott turned a corner, he saw Crumbley turned away from him. Crumbley then abruptly turned toward Elliott and began to raise his hands, causing Elliot to believe that he might have a gun. Elliott fatally shot him. Crumbley did not have a gun.In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Elliott. Crumbley was shot in the back, raising a genuine dispute about Elliot’s version of events. The facts might show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. View "Stanton v. Elliott" on Justia Law

Faver, a practicing Muslim inmate, sued, alleging the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC), had denied him the ability to practice tenets of his religion, in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc. He alleged that, because of the VDOC’s single-vendor policy for its commissaries, he was required to purchase “his perfumed oils [for prayer] from Keefe,” which also sells “swine and idols” to other inmates. While he did not allege that the Keefe prayer oil was itself unsuitable, he alleged that “Islam prohibits the acquisition of religious accouterments from a company that sells swine and idols.” VDOC explained that before 2013, under a multiple-vendor policy, VDOC experienced “negative and harmful results” to the security, safety, and efficiency of its facilities.The Fourth Circuit affirmed that VDOC did not violate Faver’s rights under RLUIPA. While Faver had a sincerely-held religious belief and his religious exercise was substantially burdened by the single-vendor policy, the policy furthered the VDOC’s compelling interest of “preventing contraband, which promotes prison safety and security, and reducing the time prison personnel must devote to checking commissary shipments, which controls costs.” The policy was “the least restrictive means to further its compelling interests.” View "Faver v. Clarke" on Justia Law

Hobbs’ former girlfriend, Foreman, called Baltimore police around 7:00 p.m. and stated that Hobbs had come to her home, brandished a semi-automatic handgun, broke a window, forcibly entered the home, removed a television, threatened to kill Foreman and her seven-year-old daughter, and stated that he also would kill responding officers. Detective Nesbitt verified that Hobbs had a violent criminal history and concluded that there was “an extreme urgent threat.” Around midnight, he submitted an “exigent form” to T-Mobile, Hobbs’ cell phone provider. T-Mobile responded with real-time “pings” that alerted Nesbitt to Hobbs’ general location. Another detective used call logs obtained from T-Mobile to determine which of Hobbs’ associates lived within the geographical range of each “ping.” About six hours after the domestic incident, officers attempted a traffic stop. Hobbs tried to flee but collided with a parked vehicle. Officers placed Hobbs under arrest and recovered a loaded handgun.Hobbs moved to suppress evidence of the firearm, arguing that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement did not justify the use of the cell phone “pings” and call logs. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. The court also rejected an argument that the jury was not instructed to find that Hobbs knew he was a felon at the time of the offense, as required by the Supreme Court’s “Rehaif” decision. View "United States v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Two months after he turned 18, Doe was caught having sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend. Doe could have been charged with “carnal knowledge of a child,” a Class 4 felony but instead pleaded to “taking indecent liberties with children,” which only prohibits behavior like propositioning a child for sex, which resulted in a shorter prison sentence. Both crimes generally put an offender on the highest tier of the sex-offender registry for life, but for carnal knowledge convictions, an offender less than five years older than his victim may be removed from the registry in time. Doe, in his 30s, sought removal from the registry, raising an equal protection claim and an Eighth Amendment claim, arguing that a lifelong registration is not an appropriate sanction for a single nonviolent crime committed by a high-school student.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. Virginia’s sex-offender registry complies with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Even if Doe is similarly situated to an offender convicted of carnal knowledge, the differential treatment between the offenders satisfies rational-basis scrutiny. The government has a legitimate interest in not imposing its harshest collateral consequences on children. The registry is a regulatory scheme, not a punishment for Eighth Amendment purposes. View "Doe v. Settle" on Justia Law

Nine parents of students with disabilities who attend South Carolina public schools and two disability advocacy organizations filed suit challenging a South Carolina provision in the South Carolina state budget that prohibits school districts from using appropriated funds to impose mask mandates. The district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the law's enforcement.The Fourth Circuit concluded that the parents and the disability advocacy organizations lack standing to sue the governor and the attorney general, and thus vacated the district court's order granting the preliminary injunction as to those defendants. In this case, although plaintiffs have alleged a nexus between their claimed injuries and the Proviso, they have not established that such injuries are fairly traceable to defendants' conduct or would be redressed by a favorable ruling against defendants. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to dismiss defendants from this case. View "Disability Rights South Carolina v. McMaster" on Justia Law