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

Debtors claimed that the bankruptcy court erred by including an inheritance that postdated their Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition by more than 180 days as part of their bankruptcy estate. The court concluded that Bankruptcy Code Section 1306(a) extended the timeline for including "the kind" of property "specified in" Section 541 in Chapter 13 bankruptcy estates. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's inclusion of the inheritance in debtors' Chapter 13 bankruptcy estate. View "Carroll v. Logan" on Justia Law

Debtor filed a Chapter 13 petition in the bankruptcy court identifying his interest in his primary residence located in Maryland. On appeal, debtor and his spouse argued that the bankruptcy court erred in refusing to strip off a lien on the ground that the spouse's property interest was not part of the bankruptcy estate. The lien was against the property that debtor owned with his non-debtor spouse as tenants by the entireties. The court concluded that the statutory provisions authorizing a strip off, and applicable Maryland property law, did not permit a bankruptcy court to alter a non-debtor's interest in property held in a tenancy by the entirety. The court held that the bankruptcy court correctly determined that it lacked authority to strip off debtor's valueless lien because only debtor's interest in the estate, rather than the complete entireties estate, was before the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Alvarez v. HSBC Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, out-of-state medical providers seeking to open facilities in Virginia, filed suit challenging Virginia's certificate-of-need requirement. In order to launch a medical enterprise in the state of Virginia, a firm was required to obtain a certificate of public need. Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that Virginia's requirement violated the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating in both purpose and effect. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court concluded that plaintiffs' Commerce Clause challenges required closer scrutiny and further proceedings before the district court. The court concluded, however, that plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claims were properly dismissed. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Colon Health Centers v. Hazel" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a handgun by a felon. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the hand gun based on his claim that the frisk violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the objective facts of record supported the reasonableness of the officer's suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous and thus his authority to conduct a frisk. View "United States v. George" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Estonian-born citizen of Russia, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying her untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings. The court held that when a petitioner failed to meet the statutory deadline to file a motion to reopen her immigration case, equitable tolling was appropriate only when (1) the Government's wrongful conduct prevented the petitioner from filing a timely motion; or (2) extraordinary circumstances beyond the petitioner's control made it impossible. In this case, petitioner simply misunderstood the accurate, but limited, advice given by a USCIS officer and then ignored two warnings from her attorney that she needed to file a motion to reopen her immigration case within the statutory time limit. Accordingly, petitioner failed to satisfy either criteria for equitable tolling and the court denied the petition for review. View "Kuusk v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

A putative class of female former and current managers of Family Dollar stores filed suit alleging violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and Section 216(b) of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. 206(d). The court found that the district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint was based on an erroneous interpretation of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, and the denial was thus an abuse of discretion. Without resolving the class certification issue, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider whether, based on the court's interpretation of Wal-Mart, the proposed amended complaint satisfied the class certification requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. View "Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying his application for cancellation of removal on the ground that he failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement of 8 U.S.C. 1229b. The BIA has held that, pursuant to In re Romalez-Alcaide, an alien's continuous physical presence terminated when he voluntarily departed the United States under threat of removal. The court concluded that, in light of the fact that section 1229b was silent as to whether an alien's voluntary departure under threat of removal terminated his continuous physical presence in the country, the BIA's interpretation of the statute was reasonable. The court concluded that petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that he was eligible for relief and denied the petition for review. View "Garcia v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for unlawfully possessing ammunition after being previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; the district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury; but the district court's application of the modified categorical approach to support defendant's sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), was in error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and reversed the sentence, remanding for resentencing. View "United States v. Royal" on Justia Law

Anthony Lawrence Dash filed suit against Floyd Mayweather, Jr., Mayweather Promotions, Mayweather Promotions LLC, Philthy Rich Records, Inc., and World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE), alleging that defendants violated his copyright by playing a variant of Dash's copyrighted music during Mayweather's entrance to two WWE events. On appeal, Dash challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment and its denial of reconsideration with respect to his entitlement to actual and profit damages under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 504(b). The court found that an expert's report's, (the Einhorn Report) estimation of Dash's lost licensing fee, without more, was too speculative to show that "a reasonable jury could return a verdict" in Dash's favor on his actual damages claim, and therefore, summary judgment was appropriate; even if the Einhorn Report had suggested or even expressly concluded that the use of Dash's beat at WWE events was of some value to defendants, summary judgment would still be appropriate because the evidence supporting such conclusion was overly speculative in light of the record before the court and, therefore, was insufficient to establish a genuine dispute regarding Dash's actual damages; and the district court properly granted defendant summary judgment on Dash's claim for profit damages because Dash provided the factfinder with no reasonable basis for concluding that the infringement contributed to defendants' profits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Dash v. Mayweather, Jr." on Justia Law

College Newspapers challenged the ABC's ban on alcohol advertisements as violative of the First Amendment. The court concluded that the challenged regulation violated the First Amendment as applied to the College Newspapers where a regulation of commercial speech must satisfy all four Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of N.Y. prongs in order to survive an as-applied challenge, and the regulation at issue here did not satisfy the fourth prong. The district court erred in concluding that the challenged regulation was appropriately tailored to achieve its objective of reducing abusive college drinking. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the ABC. View "Educational Media Co. v. Insley" on Justia Law