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

Zachary Hebb challenged a municipal ordinance in Asheville, North Carolina, that prohibited the use of amplified sound within 150 feet of a medical clinic during its operating hours. Hebb, who regularly protested outside a Planned Parenthood clinic, argued that the ordinance infringed on his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He preferred using a sound amplifier to communicate his message without yelling. After being cited for violating the ordinance, Hebb filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory relief, a permanent injunction, nominal damages, and attorneys' fees.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina initially granted Hebb a preliminary injunction, finding that the ordinance likely violated his First Amendment rights and was unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court denied Asheville's motions to dismiss and later granted Hebb's motion for summary judgment, permanently enjoining the ordinance and awarding nominal damages for the due process claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Asheville's motions to dismiss Hebb's First Amendment claim but reversed the summary judgment in Hebb's favor, finding that there were disputed factual and legal questions that warranted further consideration. The court held that the ordinance was content-neutral and served a significant government interest in protecting patients from harmful noise. However, it concluded that the entry of summary judgment was premature.Regarding Hebb's due process claim, the Fourth Circuit held that the 2021 version of the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to prevent Hebb from using a plastic cone. The court found that the ordinance provided adequate notice of what conduct was prohibited and included sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's decision on the due process claim and remanded with instructions to dismiss it. View "Hebb v. City of Asheville" on Justia Law

Alan Hicks was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and grand larceny in West Virginia in 1988 and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. In 2021, Hicks filed a federal habeas petition in the Southern District of West Virginia, challenging the validity of his imprisonment. The district court dismissed his petition, citing Hicks's failure to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal relief.Hicks's journey through the state court system began in 1989 with a motion for a reduced sentence, which the state court ignored for eight years. In 1997, Hicks filed a petition for postconviction relief, which was mishandled by multiple judges and attorneys over the next several decades. In 2019, the West Virginia Supreme Court ordered the state court to address Hicks's long-pending motions, but further delays ensued. By 2025, Hicks's state postconviction petition was finally resolved on the merits by a judge uninvolved in his prosecution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Hicks argued that the extreme delay in his state postconviction proceedings rendered the state process ineffective, thus excusing his failure to exhaust state remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(ii). The Fourth Circuit, however, held that the statutory text requires a present ineffectiveness of the state process, not past delays. Since West Virginia had recently resolved Hicks's state postconviction petition, the court found no current ineffectiveness in the state process.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Hicks's federal habeas petition, concluding that Hicks did not meet the statutory requirements to excuse his failure to exhaust state remedies. View "Hicks v. Frame" on Justia Law

Edin Anael Solis-Rodriguez, an illegal alien, brandished firearms in two separate incidents at local restaurants in Charlotte, North Carolina. In the second incident, he shot a patron, Chris Silva, at point-blank range, causing severe injuries. Solis-Rodriguez was charged with two counts of possessing a firearm as an illegal alien under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). He pled guilty to both counts.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina accepted his guilty plea and sentenced him to a total of 180 months' imprisonment, with 120 months for the first count and 60 months for the second count, to be served consecutively. The court considered the presentence report, which included a 4-level enhancement for using a firearm in connection with attempted murder, resulting in a guidelines range of 151 to 188 months. Solis-Rodriguez's objections to the enhancement and the argument that the two offenses should be considered one continuing offense were rejected.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Solis-Rodriguez challenged the Rule 11 colloquy as plainly erroneous and his sentence as procedurally unreasonable. The Fourth Circuit assumed, without deciding, that there was a plain error in the Rule 11 colloquy but found that it did not affect Solis-Rodriguez’s substantial rights. The court also held that the district court adequately considered and explained the sentencing factors, including Solis-Rodriguez’s age and lack of violent criminal history, and found the sentence procedurally reasonable. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Solis-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Katrina Robertson, an independent contractor working as a polygraph examiner for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was involved in an automobile accident while exiting the DIA campus. She sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that a DIA employee's negligence caused the accident. The government moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that it had not waived its sovereign immunity under the FTCA because a private employer in similar circumstances would be immune from suit under Virginia law.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted the government's motion to dismiss. The court found that the DIA was a "statutory employer" under the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act (VWCA) and that Robertson's injury occurred during the course of her work. Therefore, the VWCA provided the exclusive remedy, and the government was immune from the suit. The district court also denied Robertson's motion to certify a question to the Supreme Court of Virginia as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that under the FTCA, the United States is liable only to the extent that a private party would be liable in similar circumstances. Since a private employer in Virginia would be immune from a negligence suit under the VWCA if it were a statutory employer, the United States had not waived its sovereign immunity. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Robertson v. United States" on Justia Law

CPI Security Systems, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Vivint Smart Home, Inc., alleging that Vivint engaged in deceptive practices to lure away CPI’s customers. Vivint sales representatives falsely claimed that Vivint had acquired CPI, that CPI was going out of business, or that Vivint needed to upgrade CPI’s equipment. These tactics led many CPI customers to switch to Vivint, causing significant losses for CPI. A jury found Vivint liable for violating the Lanham Act, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), and for committing the common-law torts of unfair competition and tortious interference with contracts. The jury awarded CPI $49.7 million in compensatory damages and $140 million in punitive damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina upheld the jury’s verdict. Vivint appealed, raising several issues, including the requirement of CPI’s reliance on false statements for the UDTPA claim, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the damages award, the application of North Carolina’s cap on punitive damages, and the admission of prejudicial evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found no reversible error. The court held that CPI was not required to prove its own reliance on Vivint’s false statements to establish a UDTPA claim, as the claim was based on unfair competition rather than fraud. The court also found that the evidence presented by CPI was sufficient to support the jury’s damages award. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court correctly applied North Carolina’s cap on punitive damages by considering the total compensatory damages awarded. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vivint’s motion to bifurcate the trial or in its evidentiary rulings. The reassignment of the trial judge post-trial did not warrant a new trial. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc." on Justia Law

Donald Booker owned and operated United Youth Care Services, which billed North Carolina’s Medicaid program for millions of dollars’ worth of medically unnecessary drug tests. Booker was involved in a scheme where his company, along with United Diagnostic Laboratories, recruited individuals to submit to drug testing, which was then billed to Medicaid. The company used several medical providers to certify the testing as medically necessary, even though these providers often did not meet with the beneficiaries. Booker directed the testing protocols, which included testing all participants twice per week regardless of medical need. He also arranged kickback schemes with other entities to recruit Medicaid beneficiaries for the drug tests.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina convicted Booker on ten counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, commit health care fraud, pay illegal kickbacks, and money laundering. Booker represented himself at trial, and the jury found him guilty on all counts. The district court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal and sentenced him to 200 months in prison, considering a loss amount exceeding $9.5 million.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court found that there was substantial evidence to support Booker’s convictions, including testimony from co-conspirators and evidence of kickback payments. The court also rejected Booker’s arguments regarding the nondelegation doctrine, the sufficiency of the evidence for his money-laundering convictions, and the alleged Confrontation Clause violations. The court upheld the district court’s loss-amount calculation and found Booker’s sentence to be substantively reasonable, noting that his co-defendants were not similarly situated and had cooperated with the government. View "United States v. Booker" on Justia Law

Dawn Drumgold, a former employee of the Social Security Administration, applied for Social Security disability benefits in 2020, citing mental health issues including depression, bipolar disorder, and PTSD. Her application included medical records from her primary-care doctor, Dr. Sylvia Luther, and her mental-health counselor, Shideh Sarmadi, as well as reports from an independent examiner and two consultants. The records and reports provided conflicting assessments of her level of impairment.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reviewed the evidence and found that Drumgold's limitations were moderate, not severe enough to qualify for disability benefits. The ALJ found Dr. Luther's records, which often noted that Drumgold's depression was in remission, more persuasive than Sarmadi's unsupported and conclusory submissions. The ALJ also found the reports from the two consultants, who concluded that Drumgold had only moderate limitations, to be consistent with the overall record.Drumgold appealed the ALJ's decision to the Social Security Appeals Council, which declined to reverse it. She then took her case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which upheld the ALJ's decision, finding that it was supported by substantial evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the ALJ had reasonably assessed the persuasiveness of the medical opinions based on their supportability and consistency with the overall record. The court found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that Drumgold's limitations were moderate and that she retained some capacity for work. View "Drumgold v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

A Virginia statute established procedures for internet broadband service providers to access railroad property and lay cable across tracks. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) challenged the statute, arguing it was preempted by federal law and violated the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that AAR lacked standing to bring the claims because they required the participation of individual member railroads.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that AAR lacked associational standing for both its preemption and Takings Clause claims. The court found that the preemption claim required a fact-intensive inquiry into whether the statute unreasonably burdened rail transportation, necessitating individual member participation. Similarly, the Takings Clause claim required individualized proof of inadequate compensation for each crossing, which also required member participation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that AAR had standing to pursue its preemption claims, as these could be litigated without the participation of individual members. The court reasoned that the preemption claims involved general judgments about the statute's nature and operation, not specific operations of individual railroads. However, the court affirmed the district court's ruling on the Takings Clause claim, agreeing that it required individualized proof of compensation for each crossing, necessitating member participation.The Fourth Circuit thus affirmed the district court's judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Association of American Railroads v. Hudson" on Justia Law

Employers’ Innovative Network and its president, Jeff Mullins, entered into contracts with Bridgeport Benefits, Capital Security, and other parties to secure a new health insurance policy for their employee healthcare benefit plan. The relationship between the parties deteriorated, leading Employers’ Innovative Network to file a lawsuit in West Virginia state court in April 2018, alleging breach of contract, fraud, slander, and violations of the West Virginia Unauthorized Insurers Act. The case was removed to federal court but was stayed pending arbitration in Bermuda, as stipulated in the contracts.The arbitration was conducted in Bermuda, where the arbitrator, Delroy Duncan, ruled in favor of the defendants. Employers’ Innovative Network later challenged Duncan’s impartiality, citing conflicts of interest, but the Bermuda Arbitration Institute upheld Duncan’s position. The plaintiffs did not appeal this decision to the Bermuda Supreme Court. Subsequently, the defendants sought to enforce the arbitral award in the United States under Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and the Southern District of West Virginia granted their request, rejecting the plaintiffs’ public policy defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further fact-finding to determine whether Chapter 1 or Chapter 2 of the FAA applies. The appellate court noted that the arbitration might be governed by Chapter 1, which includes an “evident partiality” defense, or by Chapter 2, which does not explicitly include such a defense but allows for non-enforcement on public policy grounds. The court emphasized the need to clarify the citizenship of Capital Security and the nature of the parties’ relationship to determine the applicable chapter. View "Employers' Innovative Network, LLC v. Bridgeport Benefits, Inc." on Justia Law

Dr. Ron Elfenbein, who runs an urgent-care clinic in Maryland, was charged with healthcare fraud for allegedly overbilling insurers by using high-level codes for simple COVID-19 tests and submitting false medical records. The clinic, which shifted to primarily COVID-19 testing during the pandemic, billed five patient visits at level four, which is typically reserved for more complex medical decision-making.In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, a jury found Elfenbein guilty on all charges after an 11-day trial. However, the district court acquitted him, reasoning that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court also conditionally granted a new trial, citing the close nature of the case and the significant evidence that came from Elfenbein's own witnesses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the jury had enough evidence to convict Elfenbein, as the government presented sufficient testimony and documentation to support the charges of overbilling and submitting false records. The court noted that the jury could reasonably conclude that the level-four codes were inappropriate for the simple COVID-19 tests and that the medical records were materially false.However, the Fourth Circuit also affirmed the district court's decision to grant a new trial. The appellate court acknowledged that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial, given the weaknesses in the government's case-in-chief and the significant evidence that came from the defense. The case was remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Elfenbein" on Justia Law