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

Law enforcement in Onslow County, North Carolina, identified an individual as the leader of a White supremacist gang and conducted surveillance on his residence. After stopping vehicles leaving the residence and finding drugs, cash, and paraphernalia, officers obtained and executed a search warrant, recovering firearms, drugs, and related items. The individual was indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon and later for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and heroin. He pleaded guilty to these charges, first without a plea agreement and then with one. While detained awaiting sentencing, he was involved in smuggling drugs into jail and assaulted sheriff’s deputies, leading to an additional federal indictment for assaulting persons assisting federal officers.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina accepted his guilty pleas after thorough Rule 11 colloquies. After discovery revealed that the government had initially provided an incomplete copy of the search warrant affidavit, the defendant moved to withdraw his first two guilty pleas, arguing the omission rendered his pleas unknowing and involuntary and that he lacked competent counsel. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, found the missing pages immaterial, and denied the motion. At sentencing, the court also denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility due to the defendant’s post-plea conduct and imposed a downward variant sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment, below the advisory Guidelines range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The court held that the incomplete search warrant affidavit was not material to the defendant’s decision to plead guilty, that he had the close assistance of competent counsel, and that the district court did not err in denying credit for acceptance of responsibility or in imposing the sentence. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Milam" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge to an executive order issued by the President in January 2025, which established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and required federal executive agencies to create internal DOGE Teams with broad IT access to agency systems. Plaintiffs, consisting of several professional organizations and individuals, alleged that granting such access to DOGE-affiliated employees would expose their personally identifiable information in violation of the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They sought to enjoin the Department of Education, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Department of the Treasury from providing this access.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland initially granted a temporary restraining order, and later a preliminary injunction, halting the agencies’ DOGE Teams from accessing the IT systems. The government appealed the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which stayed the injunction pending appeal. During the appeal, the Supreme Court stayed a similar injunction in a related case involving the Social Security Administration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision under an abuse of discretion standard. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in its analysis of the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, particularly by failing to account for the cumulative difficulty plaintiffs faced in prevailing on multiple independent legal issues necessary for relief. The appellate court found that plaintiffs likely lacked standing, and even if standing existed, there were substantial unresolved questions regarding final agency action, the adequacy of remedies under the APA, and whether the Privacy Act’s exceptions applied. The Fourth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent" on Justia Law

The defendant, while incarcerated at a federal correctional institution in Petersburg, Virginia, created and possessed obscene visual depictions of the sexual abuse of children. Correctional officers discovered these materials during a routine search of his cell, and the defendant admitted to making and possessing them. He was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1), which criminalize such conduct when committed within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia conducted a bench trial after the defendant waived his right to a jury. At trial, the government presented evidence that the defendant’s conduct occurred at FCI Petersburg and argued that the prison’s status as federal territory was a legal question for the court. The district court found the government had not established an interstate commerce basis for jurisdiction but concluded that FCI Petersburg was within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, relying on the federal government’s practical usage and dominion over the facility. The court took judicial notice of this status and convicted the defendant. The defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient proof of federal jurisdiction, but the court denied the motion and imposed a 180-month sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that, while the government must prove to the factfinder where the offense occurred, the legal status of that location as within federal jurisdiction is a question for the court, based on legislative facts that may be judicially noticed. However, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court applied the wrong legal standard by not fully analyzing the statutory requirements for federal territorial jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 7(3). The appellate court vacated the conviction and remanded for the district court to properly determine FCI Petersburg’s jurisdictional status. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2020, Maurice Wells participated in a protest outside the Alamance County courthouse in North Carolina, which focused on issues including solidarity with George Floyd and opposition to the local sheriff. During the protest, a confrontation occurred between Wells and counterprotestors over the ringing of a courthouse bell. Sheriff Terry Johnson, concerned about escalating tensions, ordered the crowd to disperse. When Wells refused to comply and continued shouting, Johnson arrested him. Wells was subsequently charged with failure to disperse and disorderly conduct. He was convicted in North Carolina District Court after the judge rejected his First Amendment defense, and his appeal of that conviction remains pending.While his state criminal appeal was ongoing, Wells filed a civil suit against Sheriff Johnson, alleging that his arrest was unconstitutional and constituted retaliation for protected speech. He sought only a declaratory judgment stating that the arrest violated his First Amendment rights, arguing that such a declaration would address both past and potential future harms. Johnson removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The district court granted summary judgment for Johnson, holding that Wells’s state conviction established probable cause and precluded his claims, and that Wells lacked evidence for his alternative theory of viewpoint discrimination. The court dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether Wells had standing to seek the declaratory relief requested. The Fourth Circuit held that Wells lacked standing because the declaratory judgment he sought would not provide constitutionally adequate redress for his alleged injuries, either past or future. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to return it to state court, as required when federal jurisdiction is lacking in a removed case. View "Wells v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A group of employees at a wealth management firm in Richmond, Virginia, decided to leave their employer and establish a competing business. These employees, who had access to proprietary client information, had signed employment agreements with their former employer that included non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses. The agreements also addressed the industry-wide Protocol for Broker Recruiting, which generally allows departing financial advisors to take certain client information and solicit former clients if specific procedures are followed. However, the agreements stated that their terms would control over the Protocol in the event of any conflict. After resigning, the employees formed a new firm and began contacting their former clients, resulting in the loss of hundreds of accounts and significant assets for their previous employer.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the former employer, barring the former employees and their new firm from contacting former clients or using confidential information. The district court found a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the trade secrets claims against all defendants, reasoning that even under the Protocol, the defendants’ conduct constituted impermissible “raiding.” The court also found that the employer would likely suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored injunctive relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of the Protocol and the employment agreements. The Fourth Circuit held that the Protocol’s “raiding” exception applies only to actions by outside firms targeting another firm’s employees, not to employees leaving to form their own business. The court concluded that the employment agreements, not the Protocol, governed the former employees’ conduct and supported the injunction against them. However, because the new firm was not a party to those agreements, the injunction as to the new firm was vacated. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the injunction against the former employees but vacated it as to the new firm. View "Salomon & Ludwin, LLC v. Winters" on Justia Law

Residents and businesses in Lumberton, North Carolina, experienced severe flooding during Hurricanes Matthew and Florence in 2016 and 2018. The flooding was exacerbated by a gap in the city’s levee system, which existed because a CSX Transportation rail line crossed the area. The City of Lumberton had previously entered into a licensing agreement, known as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), with CSX’s predecessor and a local drainage district. The TPA allowed the City to construct and maintain an earthen dike across CSX’s property and, under certain conditions, to close the dike in the event of imminent flooding. However, the City never built the dike. When the hurricanes approached, the City sought permission from CSX to close the gap with emergency sandbags, but CSX refused, resulting in significant flood damage.The plaintiffs, representing a putative class of affected residents and businesses, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, asserting contract and tort claims against CSX. The district court dismissed the tort claims as preempted by federal law and initially dismissed the contract claim, finding the plaintiffs were not intended third-party beneficiaries of the TPA. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the contract claim, allowing it to proceed. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to CSX on three alternative grounds: federal preemption, lack of third-party beneficiary status, and failure to show breach of contract.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs could not show CSX breached the TPA. The court held that, because the earthen dike contemplated by the TPA was never constructed, CSX had no contractual obligation to allow closure of the gap by other means, such as sandbags. The judgment was affirmed. View "Edwards v. CSX Transportation, Inc." on Justia Law

Sandra Gardner, a member of the International Association of Machinists, sought to bring a lawsuit against her union and several of its officers, alleging that the General Secretary-Treasurer, Dora Cervantes, had misused union funds for personal travel, thereby breaching her fiduciary duty under federal law. Before filing suit, Gardner and other union members sent multiple letters to the union’s leadership demanding an accounting of the allegedly misappropriated funds and requesting that the union itself bring legal action against the implicated officers. The union responded by commissioning an independent accounting firm to investigate the claims, which ultimately found no evidence of wrongdoing. The union’s Executive Council, relying on this report, declined to take further action.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland reviewed Gardner’s verified application for leave to file suit under 29 U.S.C. § 501(b). The district court denied her application, concluding that Gardner had not satisfied the statutory “demand requirement” because the union had responded to her request by conducting an accounting and found no basis for further action. The court did not address whether Gardner had shown “good cause” to proceed with her claim, as required by the statute.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Gardner had properly satisfied the demand requirement. The appellate court reasoned that Gardner’s letters clearly demanded both an accounting and that the union bring suit, and the union’s failure to initiate legal action meant the demand was not fully met. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Gardner’s application and remanded the case for the district court to consider whether Gardner has demonstrated good cause to proceed with her § 501 claim. View "Gardner v. International Association of Machinists" on Justia Law

Lawrence Florentine killed his wife, Nicole, during an interstate trip that began in North Carolina. After her death, he attempted to conceal the crime by burning her body and burying the remains in a Kentucky cemetery. Surveillance and forensic evidence established that Nicole was already dead when Florentine set her body on fire. The government charged Florentine with several felonies, including interstate domestic violence resulting in death and use of fire to commit a felony, with the latter charge based on his burning of Nicole’s corpse after her death.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina denied Florentine’s motion to dismiss the use-of-fire charge, holding that interstate domestic violence is a continuing offense that had not ended at the time Florentine used fire. Florentine entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss Count 4. The district court sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment, including a mandatory consecutive sentence for the use-of-fire count, and stated it would have imposed the same sentence even if the use-of-fire charge had been dismissed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo. The court held that the crime of interstate domestic violence, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2261(a)(2), ends when the victim dies. Acts undertaken to conceal the crime after the victim’s death, such as burning the body, are not part of the offense. Therefore, the district court erred in denying Florentine’s motion to dismiss the use-of-fire charge. However, because the district court made clear it would have imposed the same sentence regardless, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded solely for entry of an amended judgment, finding resentencing unnecessary. View "United States v. Florentine" on Justia Law

A 14-year-old student, S.B., who had a history of trauma and mental health challenges, began high school in Appomattox County, Virginia, in August 2021. S.B. identified as male at school and was advised by a counselor that he could use the boys’ restroom. Following this, S.B. was subjected to harassment, threats, and sexual assault by male students. School staff, including counselors, were aware of the harassment and S.B.’s mental health vulnerabilities but did not inform S.B.’s adoptive mother, Blair, about the gender identity issues, the bullying, or the school’s responses. Instead, staff continued to affirm S.B.’s male identity without parental notification and failed to take effective action to stop the harassment. After a series of escalating incidents, S.B. suffered a breakdown, ran away, and was subsequently victimized by sex traffickers.Blair filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia against the school board and staff, alleging deliberate indifference to sexual harassment under Title IX, Monell liability for unconstitutional policy or failure to train, and violations of substantive due process rights. The district court dismissed all claims, finding insufficient allegations of deliberate indifference or Monell liability, and granted qualified immunity to the individual defendants on the due process claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that Blair’s Title IX claim for deliberate indifference against the school board was sufficiently pleaded and should not have been dismissed, as the complaint alleged the school’s response to known harassment was clearly unreasonable. However, the court affirmed dismissal of the Monell and substantive due process claims, finding the allegations were conclusory or the rights not clearly established. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the Title IX claim. View "Blair v. Appomattox County School Board" on Justia Law

The petitioner pleaded guilty in 2003 to attempted bank robbery and to carrying and using a firearm during a crime of violence. At sentencing, he was classified as a career offender under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, resulting in a sentence of 274 months’ imprisonment. Over the years, he filed several postconviction motions, including a first motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied. After subsequent changes in Supreme Court precedent regarding the constitutionality of certain sentencing provisions, the petitioner argued that the mandatory Guidelines’ career-offender provision was unconstitutionally vague and sought habeas relief.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed his habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, finding that he could not proceed under § 2241 because he did not satisfy the requirements of the “saving clause” in § 2255(e). The district court determined that the petitioner was procedurally barred from bringing a second or successive § 2255 motion and that this procedural bar did not render § 2255 “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of his detention.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix, the inability to satisfy the procedural requirements for a second or successive § 2255 motion does not make § 2255 inadequate or ineffective, and thus does not permit recourse to § 2241 via the saving clause. The court also held that this result does not violate the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, relying on its en banc precedent in In re Vial. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Bell v. Streeval" on Justia Law