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

Plaintiff filed suit against the government, seeking a refund of payments on a federal withholding tax penalty assessed against her under 26 U.S.C. 6672. The government counterclaimed against plaintiff and her husband to reduce to judgment the remaining balance of the trust fund recovery penalties assessed against them. The district court granted summary judgment to the government. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against the husband individually where he did not provide a basis of law for his contention that the assessment of the 100% penalty against him was not made within the limitation period set forth in section 6672; affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff because the undisputed record showed that she was properly liable for the 100% penalty where she was a "responsible person" under section 6672 during the relevant tax periods and where she "willfully" failed to see that the withholding taxes were paid; and affirmed the district court's determination of the amounts of the respective tax liabilities under section 6672. View "Johnson v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant convicted of distributing crack cocaine, appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in relying on multiple hearsay information to determine defendant's drug quantity for sentencing purposes and did not abuse its discretion in calculating defendant's drug quantity for sentencing purposes. Defendant's remaining claim lacked merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Crawford" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed suit challenging the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. 1997e(d)(2), a part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), as violating his right to equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Plaintiff challenged a provision that caps the attorneys' fee award that a successful prisoner litigant could recover from the government in a civil rights action at 150 percent of the value of the prisoner's monetary judgment. The court declined to apply heightened equal protection scrutiny in this case and joined its sister circuits in concluding that section 1997e(d)(2) was constitutional. Congress's goals in enacting section 1997e(d)(2) included reducing marginal or frivolous prisoner civil rights lawsuits and protecting the public fisc. Such goals were legitimate and Congress acted rationally in adopting the provision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Wilkins v. Gaddy" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in relying on his 2002 South Carolina conviction for the common law crime of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN) to impose a mandatory fifteen-year minimum. The court concluded that ABHAN was not categorically a violent felony and that the modified categorical approach played no part in this matter. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Hemingway" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of Possession of Child Pornography. The court concluded that the district court improperly applied the five-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.(b)(3)(B), which resulted in improper calculation of defendant's sentencing range. The court declined to adopt the Government's proposed reciprocity rule by applying the enhancement to every Gigatribe distribution offense absent any evidence of the particular defendant's state of mind. The district court's reliance on an improperly calculated sentencing range constituted significant procedural error and the error was not harmless. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. McManus" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Bank, alleging that the Bank violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691, by requiring her to serve as her husband's guarantor. Plaintiff sought equitable and injunctive relief, asserting a claim for unjust enrichment and seeking a declaratory judgment. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice because plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and, in any event, waiver and limitation barred her claims. The court concluded that the Bank may have violated ECOA by requiring plaintiff to sign as an unlimited guarantor. However, the court concluded that plaintiff's claim failed where, in exchange for the Bank's restructuring of the loan at issue, she executed waivers to all claims against the Bank on four separate occasions over a period of more than two years. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Ballard v. Bank of America, NA" on Justia Law

Motor Carriers filed suit against defendants under 49 U.S.C. 13706(b) of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. At issue was whether, absent a federal tariff, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a motor carrier's breach of contract claim against a shipper for unpaid freight charges. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal under the Act, finding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to dismiss. View "Gaines Motor Lines, Inc. v. Klaussner Furniture Ind." on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress various statements he made to the police and evidence recovered from his home. The court concluded that the district court's finding - that defendant's registration tag was bent - was not clearly erroneous and that the traffic stop was reasonable. The court concluded that Missouri v. Seibert was inapplicable in this case because the court held that no interrogation had occurred before plaintiff was Mirandized. The officers did not conduct an unwarned custodial interrogation on these facts when a detective asked "what do you mean" after plaintiff voluntarily proffered information. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

After the Appeals Board denied plaintiff's request for review of the denial of social security disability benefits, plaintiff sought judicial review of the ALJ's decision in federal district court. The district court found in favor of plaintiff and the Acting Commissioner appealed. The court held that the district court did not err in its application of Listing 1.04A. Listing 1.04A is the listing identifying disorders of the spine that merit a conclusive presumption of disability and an award of benefits. The court concluded, however, that the district court abused its discretion in directing an award of benefits rather than remanding for further explanation by the ALJ of why plaintiff did not meet Listing 1.04A. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Radford v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of India, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's order of removal. Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident (LPR), was deemed an inadmissible arriving alien upon his return from a 17-day overseas trip. At issue was whether 8 U.S.C. 1101, as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), still allowed for the case-by-case analysis of an alien's intent under Rosenberg v. Fleuti when determining whether the alien was "seeking an admission" for purposes of removal proceedings. Under Fleuti, LPRs were permitted to take "innocent, casual, and brief" trips abroad without having to seek readmission. The court joined its sister circuits and held that, based on the plain text of the statute, the Fleuti doctrine did not survive IIRIRA's enactment. Accordingly, upon petitioner's entry into the country from India, he was "seeking admission into the United States" and was subject to removal because of his criminal history. The court reached the same result pursuant to principles of administrative deference under Chevron. The court rejected petitioner's remaining claims and denied the petition for review. View "Othi v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law