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

Defendant appealed his conviction of two counts of bank robbery. The court concluded that the district court's refusal to allow defendant to testify in narrative form was not arbitrary or disproportionate to its purpose; the court also rejected defendant's claim that the district court impermissibly forced him to choose between his right to represent himself and to choose between testifying pro se in question-answer form and testifying in response to questions from standby counsel who would then control the case; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Beckton" on Justia Law

Defendant, who is deaf and communicates through sign language, appealed the district court's order of civil commitment following an evidentiary hearing under 18 U.S.C. 4248. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court in denying defendant's request for consecutive interpretation; the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant is a "sexually dangerous person;" and the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's equal protection and due process claims in light of United States v. Timms. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Heyer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's order of restitution as part of his sentence for obstructing federal bankruptcy proceedings. Defendant contended that the purported victims suffered losses when he caused them to take out significant loans for the benefit of his church - conduct with which he was not charged or convicted. At issue was whether the purported victims were victims "of the offense" for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 3563(b). The court concluded that the statute required the purported victims to be victims only of the offense of conviction; the Government failed to demonstrate that the purported victims' losses were "caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of" defendant's offense of conviction - obstruction of federal bankruptcy proceedings; and therefore, the district court abused its discretion in awarding restitution to the purported victims, as the award was contrary to the legal principles set out in the court's precedent. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Freeman" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motions to suppress evidence. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that the traffic stop at issue was reasonable in scope and duration and that defendant was lawfully seized for a traffic violation when the dog sniff occurred. The court also concluded that the district court correctly held that the dog was sufficiently reliable and that his positive alert provided probable cause for the search of defendant's vehicle. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Tanzanian national who suffers from severe bipolar disorder, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for asylum. Petitioner argued that he faced severe persecution because of his membership in the social group of individuals with bipolar disorder who exhibit erratic behavior. The court vacated the BIA's social visibility finding because it rests on legal error; the BIA also committed legal error in concluding that petitioner's group lacked particularity; and petitioner's proposed group is immutable. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded for further consideration. View "Temu v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions, including conspiracy and murder, arguing that the district court erred by not affording him the assistance of two attorneys under the terms of 18 U.S.C. 3005. Because the right to additional counsel under section 3005 was solely statutory, the court held that the district court was not required to call it to the attention of defendant. Therefore, the district court did not err, much less plainly err. In the alternative, the district court did not plainly err by excluding the testimony of a cooperating witness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Shepperson" on Justia Law

Swatch is the owner of three U.S. registrations for the mark SWATCH and for materials bearing that mark. Beehive produces and sells watch bands and faces under the mark SWAP. On appeal, Swatch challenged the district court's denial of its opposition to Beehive's trademark application and dismissal of its related claims for federal, state, and common law trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. The district court held that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (TTAB) determinations were supported by substantial evidence; found facts based on evidence not presented to the TTAB under its authority under 15 U.S.C. 1071(b)(3); concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks and likelihood that SWAP would dilute SWATCH; dismissed Swatch's infringement and unfair competition claims as a matter of law; and concluded that Beehive's mark was registrable because it was not merely descriptive. The court concluded that the district court properly reviewed Swatch's dilution-by-blurring claim entirely de novo; the district court also decided Swatch's trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, which were not before the TTAB, de novo; and, although the district court stated that it would apply an impermissible hybrid review to its likelihood of confusion and strength-of-the-mark analyses, there were more than sufficient facts recited in its opinion to support its findings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Swatch AG v. Beehive Wholesale, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action challenging the constitutionality of the issuance and form of automated speeding citations issued under Maryland's speed camera program. The court found that the notice and hearing afforded by Maryland's speed camera statute satisfied due process where notice sent by first-class mail was reasonably calculated to provide actual notice of the speeding violation and civil penalties; the availability of a trial in state court, upon plaintiffs' election, provided adequate opportunity to be heard on any objections prior to the imposition of the statutory penalties; and any flaws in the citation or enforcement process could have been challenged in the state courts and plaintiffs failed to do so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the towns. View "Snider Int'l Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, MD" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Hoschar, filed suit in West Virginia state court against APCO and ICI, seeking damages for an infectious lung disease called histoplasmosis that Mr. Hoschar allegedly contracted while working as a boilermaker at one of APCO's coal-fired power plants. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's denial of their motion to remand the case to state court and the district court's grant of APCO's motion for summary judgment in favor of APCO. The court concluded that APCO has carried its burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction because the record amply demonstrated that the location where APCO's officers direct, control, and coordinate APCO's activities was Columbus, Ohio. The court held that APCO did not have actual or constructive knowledge of a potential histoplasmosis risk, and therefore, APCO did not owe Mr. Hoschar a duty to guard against it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of APCO. View "Hoschar v. Appalachian Power Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Elk Run, alleging that the company committed fraud on the court and therefore deprived her coal miner husband of nearly a decade of benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), 30 U.S.C. 901-945. Plaintiff contended that Elk Run had committed fraud on the court because it had not disclosed certain expert reports to its expert pulmonologists. The court affirmed the Board's finding that Elk Run's conduct was not sufficiently egregious to meet the high bar for a claim of fraud on the court because it did not amount to an intentional design aimed at undermining the integrity of the adjudicative process. The court found that Elk Run's conduct did not, under Supreme Court and circuit precedent, demonstrate the commission of a fraud upon the court. View "Fox v. Elk Run Coal Co., Inc." on Justia Law