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

Law enforcement agents were surveilling a motel room in Charles Town, West Virginia, to arrest a woman. They saw Dehaven Craig leave the room and drive off. Craig had a significant criminal history, including prior felony convictions. After Craig left, agents entered the motel room, arrested the woman, and found a loaded .380 caliber pistol. The woman claimed the gun belonged to Craig. When Craig returned, officers stopped him and found 0.8 grams of cocaine base in his SUV. Craig was indicted on two drug charges and one charge for unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon.Craig and the government reached a plea agreement where Craig would plead guilty to the firearm charge, and the government would drop the drug charges and recommend a sentence within the Guidelines range. The plea agreement included a stipulation of facts relevant to sentencing. At the plea hearing, the government stated that the stipulation contained Craig’s total relevant conduct. The court accepted the plea, and the probation officer calculated Craig’s Guidelines range. The government sought two enhancements based on facts not included in the stipulation, which Craig objected to, but the probation officer and the district court overruled his objections, resulting in a higher Guidelines range and a 100-month sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the plea agreement stipulated to Craig’s total relevant conduct for sentencing purposes and that the government breached the agreement by seeking enhancements based on facts outside the stipulation. The court held that the government’s duty of candor did not excuse it from its commitments under the plea agreement. The court vacated Craig’s sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different district court judge. View "US v. Craig" on Justia Law

Victor Manuel Castro-Aleman, originally from El Salvador, was brought to the United States illegally in 1973 as a child. Over the years, he had multiple encounters with law enforcement, including four DUI convictions in Virginia between 2009 and 2014. In 2016, while serving a sentence for his fourth DUI, he was visited by ICE agents and subsequently issued a Notice to Appear in removal proceedings. He was ordered removed by an Immigration Judge (IJ) after failing to submit an asylum application and not appealing the removal order. Castro-Aleman reentered the United States illegally and was discovered in Virginia in 2023, leading to his indictment for illegal reentry.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Castro-Aleman's motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that his 2016 removal order was invalid due to due process violations. The district court found that he had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal the removal order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Castro-Aleman failed to demonstrate that his removal order was "fundamentally unfair" under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3). The court found that even if there were due process violations, such as the IJ's failure to inform him adequately of his right to appeal, Castro-Aleman could not show actual prejudice. His extensive criminal history and admissions during the removal hearing established multiple independent grounds for his removability, making any appeal futile. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of his motion to dismiss and upheld his conviction for illegal reentry. View "United States v. Castro-Aleman" on Justia Law

In the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Lab required employees to be vaccinated against the disease. Sally Tarquinio, who suffers from “Lyme-induced immune dysregulation,” requested a medical exemption, fearing adverse effects from the vaccine. The lab found her condition unclear and requested to speak with her doctors, but Tarquinio refused. Consequently, the lab denied her exemption request and terminated her employment for non-compliance. Tarquinio sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the lab.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland reviewed the case and found that Tarquinio had not provided sufficient evidence to support her need for an exemption. The court noted that the lab had made good faith efforts to understand her condition and accommodate her, but Tarquinio’s refusal to allow communication with her doctors prevented the lab from obtaining necessary information. The court concluded that without this information, the lab could not be held liable for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Tarquinio’s failure to engage in the interactive process by not providing adequate medical documentation or allowing the lab to speak with her doctors meant that the lab was not on proper notice of her need for accommodation. The court emphasized that the interactive process is essential for determining reasonable accommodations and that an employer cannot be held liable if the employee obstructs this process. Thus, the lab’s actions were deemed appropriate, and the summary judgment in favor of the lab was affirmed. View "Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab" on Justia Law

Duane Berry was indicted in 2015 for planting a fake bomb outside a building in Detroit. The district court in Michigan found him mentally incompetent to stand trial and committed him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 for a competency evaluation. After determining that his competency could not be restored, the court dismissed the charges against him in December 2019. Concerned about his potential danger to the public, the court ordered a psychological evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4246.The government faced delays due to a backlog at the evaluation facility and the COVID-19 pandemic. Berry was eventually evaluated, and the facility's director certified that his release would pose a substantial risk. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina held a hearing and found by clear and convincing evidence that Berry met the criteria for commitment under § 4246, as he was still in custody under § 4241 when the certification was filed.Berry appealed, arguing that he did not fall into any of the categories eligible for commitment under § 4246 and that the delay in filing the certification was unreasonable. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Berry was in lawful custody under § 4241 at the time of the certification. The court found the delay reasonable given the administrative challenges and the pandemic. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to commit Berry under § 4246, holding that the statutory provisions were followed correctly and that Berry's continued custody was lawful. View "United States v. Berry" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of Honduras entered the United States without authorization in 2003. In 2019, an Immigration Judge (IJ) indicated intent to grant his application for cancellation of removal, but due to a legislative cap, the decision was reserved until a visa became available in January 2023. By then, the initial IJ had retired, and a new IJ was assigned. The new IJ scheduled a new merits hearing because the petitioner was charged with a felony during the interim period. The new IJ ultimately denied the application, citing a lack of good moral character.The petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that a binding policy required the reserved grant of cancellation to be issued within five days of visa availability, which would have precluded consideration of the new felony charge. The BIA rejected this argument, stating that the policy was not binding and did not create a remedy for exceeding the time frame. The BIA affirmed the new IJ's decision, finding the petitioner lacked good moral character and did not merit a favorable exercise of discretion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the policy the petitioner relied upon was not binding and, even if it were, it would not have imposed a five-day deadline in this case. The court noted that the policy was an internal guideline not intended to confer individual rights or have the force of law. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner was not substantially prejudiced by the delay, as he was required to maintain good moral character throughout the proceedings. The petition for review was denied. View "Zalaya Orellana v. Bondi" on Justia Law

James Cooper was injured in a car accident in August 2019 while riding as a passenger in a car owned by Rick Huffman. Both Cooper and Huffman were employees of Pison Management, LLC, and were driving to a jobsite for work. Cooper's injuries exceeded the third-party driver's insurance limits, so he sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under Pison's commercial automobile policy issued by Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company. The policy provided $1 million in liability coverage for two vehicles owned by Pison and a class of non-owned vehicles but only offered UIM coverage for the owned vehicles. Erie denied Cooper's claim for UIM coverage.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Cooper, holding that West Virginia Code § 33-6-31 required Erie to offer UIM coverage for all vehicles covered by the liability policy, including non-owned vehicles. The court issued a declaratory judgment that Cooper was entitled to $1 million in UIM coverage. Erie appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and certified a question of law to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. The West Virginia court concluded that West Virginia Code § 33-6-31 did not require Erie to offer UIM coverage for non-owned vehicles. The court determined that Cooper was not an "insured" under the statute because Pison, the named insured, did not own the vehicle in which Cooper was riding and thus could not consent to its use for UIM purposes.Applying the West Virginia court's interpretation, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in favor of Cooper and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Erie. View "Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company v. Cooper" on Justia Law

In January 2013, Stanislav “Steven” Yelizarov robbed a jewelry store after a series of serious events, including home burglaries and kidnapping. He received a thirty-year sentence for kidnapping and conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery. Over eight years, Yelizarov agreed to two plea deals, filed two motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, was sentenced twice, and had three judges decide parts of his cases. He appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and that his sentence was unreasonable.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland initially sentenced Yelizarov to 360 months based on a plea agreement. After learning of a potential murder charge, Yelizarov renegotiated a plea deal, which included a waiver of appeal. He later filed a § 2255 motion, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing his attorney failed to advise him properly about the murder charge and its implications. The district court denied the motion, finding no prejudice from the attorney’s actions, as Yelizarov was aware of the potential murder charge and chose to plead guilty.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that Yelizarov was not prejudiced by his counsel’s performance. The court found that Yelizarov knowingly waived his right to appeal his sentence, including claims of procedural and substantive unreasonableness. The court dismissed his appeal regarding the reasonableness of his sentence, enforcing the waiver of appeal in his plea agreement. The court emphasized that a failure to mention specific sentencing factors does not constitute procedural unreasonableness. The decision was affirmed in part and dismissed in part. View "US v. Yelizarov" on Justia Law

A group of current and former pretrial detainees filed a putative class action against Prince George’s County, Maryland, and 11 state court judges, alleging that their detentions and the policies leading to them were unconstitutional. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and compensatory damages, claiming violations of the Due Process Clause and the Maryland Constitution.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the judges and the county had absolute immunity from the plaintiffs’ claims for damages and an injunction, and that a declaratory judgment could not provide meaningful relief. The district court dismissed the judicial defendants based on absolute judicial immunity and dismissed the claims against the county based on quasi-judicial immunity. Additionally, the district court dismissed seven plaintiffs who had been released from pretrial detention, reasoning that they would not benefit from any available remedy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal of the judicial defendants but concluded that the dismissal should have been for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the absence of an Article III case or controversy. The court held that the judicial defendants were acting in an adjudicative capacity, not as adversaries, and thus there was no justiciable controversy. The court also reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against the county, holding that municipalities do not enjoy immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, including the reinstatement of the claims of the seven plaintiffs who had been released from pretrial detention. View "Frazier v. Prince Georges County" on Justia Law

Four individuals aged 18 to 20 sought to purchase handguns but were prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), which restricts the commercial sale of handguns to those under 21. They filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), claiming that the statute violated their Second Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The court applied the text, history, and tradition test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, determining that the Second Amendment protections apply to 18- to 20-year-olds and that the right to purchase a gun falls within the Amendment’s plain text. The court found that the government failed to demonstrate a historical tradition of firearm regulation supporting the constitutionality of § 922(b)(1).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that § 922(b)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that historical traditions, including the common law infancy doctrine, supported restrictions on the sale of firearms to individuals under 21. The court found that both the infancy doctrine and § 922(b)(1) imposed similar burdens on minors' ability to purchase firearms and were motivated by concerns about the judgment and maturity of individuals under 21. The court concluded that § 922(b)(1) is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation and is therefore constitutional. The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss it. View "McCoy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives" on Justia Law

Three defendants, Jose Ordonez-Zometa, Jose Hernandez-Garcia, and Jose Ortega-Ayala, were convicted in the District of Maryland for their involvement in a racketeering enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), murder in aid of racketeering, and conspiracy to destroy and conceal evidence. The case centers around the brutal murder of a 16-year-old gang member, John Doe, by members of the Los Ghettos Criminales Salvatruchas (LGCS), a branch of the MS-13 gang. The defendants were implicated in the planning, execution, and cover-up of the murder, including the disposal of the victim's body and the destruction of evidence.In the lower court, the defendants filed several motions to suppress evidence obtained from traffic stops, custodial interrogations, and searches of residences, cell phones, and social media accounts. The District Court for the District of Maryland denied these motions, finding that the traffic stop and subsequent arrest of Ordonez-Zometa were lawful, the search warrants were supported by probable cause, and the defendants' statements were voluntary. The court also denied Hernandez-Garcia's motion for a new trial, concluding that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The appellate court held that the traffic stop and arrest of Ordonez-Zometa were justified by an outstanding arrest warrant and probable cause. The court also found that the search warrants for Ortega-Ayala's residence, cell phones, and Facebook account were supported by probable cause and were not overly broad. Additionally, the court ruled that Hernandez-Garcia's motion for a new trial was properly denied, as the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the convictions. Finally, the court concluded that the government had presented sufficient evidence to establish that the LGCS enterprise's activities affected interstate commerce, satisfying the requirements for RICO and VICAR convictions. The defendants' convictions and sentences were thus affirmed. View "US v. Ordonez-Zometa" on Justia Law