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

Plaintiff sued his employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., asserting that his inability to work more than eight hours per day and rotate day/night shifts as a result of physical impairments rendered him disabled under the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer and plaintiff subsequently appealed. The court held that an inability to work overtime did not constitute a "substantial" limitation on a major life activity under the ADA and the record contained no evidence indicating that plaintiff's inability to work overtime "significantly restricted" his ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Boitnott v. Corning Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for willfully and knowingly making a false statement on a passport application after he prepared, signed, and submitted passport applications for his three stepsons and listed himself as the children's father. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the Bronston literal truth defense did not entitle defendant to judgment as a matter of law; in the context of an application for a United States passport, the word "father" was not fundamentally ambiguous; the evidence was sufficient to find that defendant understood the inquiry made by the passport application as the Government itself did and answered the question posed falsely; and the district court did not err in refusing to give defendant's proposed instruction regarding the lack of statutory definition of the word "father." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Sarwari" on Justia Law

The State sought reversal of the district court's judgment granting a writ of habeas corpus to petitioner. In granting the writ, the district court vacated the sentence of death imposed after petitioner's conviction of first degree murder. The district court concluded, inter alia, that the state courts of North Carolina unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, in rejecting petitioner's claim that his attorney on direct appeal failed to provide effective assistance of counsel. The court held that the district court's decision granting petitioner's petition ran contrary to the deference that federal courts were required to afford state court decisions adjudicating the merits of habeas corpus claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment granting the petition on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the remainder of the district court's judgment, rejecting petitioner's Brady v. Maryland and Atkins v. Virginia claims. View "Richardson v. Branker" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced on two counts of possessing a firearm or ammunition while subject to a domestic violence protective order in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8). Defendant appealed the district court's determination that his convictions under section 922(g)(8) did not violate the Second Amendment. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. But because it was plain error to convict and sentence defendant on two separate counts for the simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition under section 922(g)(8), the court reversed defendant's conviction as to count two of the indictment, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Mahin" on Justia Law

Defendant sought relief from a sentence of 240 months in prison, imposed as a result of his illegal reentry into the United States after being removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony. On appeal, defendant raised several procedural challenges to the sentence. The court held that the sentencing court committed no procedural error because the Guidelines did not expressly prohibit the triple counting of defendant's prior record; the court did not impermissibly count defendant's extensive criminal record when it imposed the upward variance justified under the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors; the district court's upward departures were not procedurally defective; and the 240 month sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Rivera-Santana" on Justia Law

Named Claimants filed "class proofs of claims" in these consolidated bankruptcy cases in which Circuit City and related entities are the debtors. Named Claimants alleged that they, together with unnamed claimants, were owed almost $150 million in unpaid overtime wages. The court affirmed the decisions of the bankruptcy court with a different procedural approach for allowing claimants to file class proofs of claim and to present Rule 9014 motions. With respect to the bankruptcy court's ruling that in the circumstances of this case, the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees, the court concluded that the court's ruling fell within its discretion. With respect to these Named Claimants' challenge to notice, the court concluded that the notice to them was not constitutionally deficient - a conclusion with which they agreed - and that, with respect to unnamed claimants, the Named Claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice. View "Gentry v. Circuit City Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants, Mark McBurney and Roger Hurlbert, appealed the district court's award of summary judgment to appellees where the district court held that Virginia's Freedom of Information Act, Va. Code Ann. 2.2-3700 et seq. (VFOIA), did not violate appellants' rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause or Hurlbert's rights under the Dormant Commerce Clause. The court concluded that VFOIA did not infringe on any of appellants' fundamental rights or privileges under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The court also held that Hurlbert waived his claim under the Dormant Commerce Clause because he failed to raise any challenge in his opening brief. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "McBurney, et al. v. Young, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order granting summary judgment to the United States on her claim seeking money damages for alleged violations of the Privacy Protection Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000aa. Plaintiff, a photojournalist who claimed a special interest in covering protests, political demonstrations, and grassroots activism, was identified on a security camera as being present during a protest demonstration during the International Monetary Funds' annual spring meeting. Police officers executed a search warrant, believing it likely that plaintiff's residence contained evidence of suspected criminal activity that occurred during the protest. Plaintiff was never arrested or charged with any crimes relating to the incident. Plaintiff subsequently brought an action against the United States under the PPA and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States. The court agreed with the district court that there was probable cause to believe plaintiff conspired with a group of vandals or aided and abetted the offenses committed by the group. Accordingly, the court concluded that the United States was entitled to summary judgment based on the "suspect exception" to the PPA and affirmed the judgment. View "Sennett v. United States, et al." on Justia Law

An officer in the backseat of a marked car claims that he observed a car with a cracked windshield. The officers followed and pulled the car over. They observed defendant, a passenger in the rear, moving around in his seat and trying to climb over the front seats, despite commands to stop. During a pat-down, the officer felt a gun and yelled "gun." Defendant then struck an officer in the face with his elbow and turned to flee. Another officer clearly observed a silver firearm with a black handle in defendant's waistband. Defendant then punched an officer. They placed him under arrest and seized a .380 semi-automatic pistol. He was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court suppressed the evidence of the gun. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that defendant's subsequent illegal acts did not purge the taint of the illegal stop. The gun was discovered as a result of the stop, not as a result of that conduct. View "United States v. Gaine" on Justia Law

Defendant, an inmate at Hazelton, appealed his convictions and sentence for two counts of assaulting a correctional officer. On appeal, defendant raised several challenges. The court held that neither of the asserted indictment errors were grounds for reversal; the district court did not improperly sustain hearsay objections to defendant's testimony; and having concluded that defendant was properly convicted under 18 U.S.C. 111(b), the court also concluded that he was properly sentenced under U.S.S.G. 2A2.2. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law