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

Petitioner filed a whistleblower-retaliation complaint under 42 U.S.C. 5851 after the NRC rejected his applications for promotions. Petitioner is an NRC employee who made disclosures to Congress and the NRC's Inspector General regarding health and safety risks at a nuclear power plant. The ALJ dismissed the case because the United States had not waived sovereign immunity for such whistleblower actions against the NRC, and the ARB affirmed.After determining that it had jurisdiction over the petition, the Fourth Circuit denied the petition for review, agreeing with the ARB that Congress has not waived sovereign immunity for complaints against the NRC. In this case, petitioner failed to make the necessary affirmative showing of waiver with the required unequivocal expression. The court explained that the lesson in its recent decision in Robinson v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 917 F.3d 799 (2019), is that the substantive and remedial provisions of a statute may not be coextensive. The court concluded that there is no doubt that the NRC is bound by the prohibitions of section 5851, but that fact alone is simply insufficient to form the basis of an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity. View "Peck v. U.S. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, the City of Newport News, alleging that it failed to accommodate his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff alleged that the City concluded that he could not perform the essential functions of his job as a detective and then offered him the options of either retiring early or accepting reassignment to a civilian position he did not want. Plaintiff reluctantly retired.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City, concluding that it is generally inappropriate for an employer to unilaterally reassign a disabled employee to a position the employee does not want when another reasonable accommodation exists that would allow the disabled employee to remain in their current, preferred position. The court clarified that it did not hold that an employer can never reassign an employee when there exists a reasonable accommodation that will keep the employee in their current and preferred position. This broad question was not before the court. Nor should this opinion be read in any way to restrict the ability of employers and employees to agree to a voluntary transfer. Rather, the court simply reiterated that reassignment is strongly disfavored when an employee can still do their current job with the assistance of a reasonable accommodation, and that reassignment should therefore be held "in reserve for unusual circumstances." View "Wirtes v. City of Newport News" on Justia Law

Defendants Johnson and Stewart were convicted of distributing heroin that, when used, resulted in the death of an 18-year-old, Jorge Armando Mercado-Medrano. Johnson was also convicted of a second offense, for distributing heroin to 22-year-old, Joel Custer.In regard to defendants' challenges to the Government's failure to disclose and preserve Medrano's cell phone, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by relying on an incomplete evidentiary record to reject defendants' claim that the Government's failure to disclose and preserve the cell phone constituted a denial of due process. The court discussed the district court's refusal to instruct the jury that it could draw an adverse inference from the loss of the cell phone, but the court did not resolve whether the district court thereby committed further error. In regard to Johnson's contention that the prosecution's presentation of evidence that Custer, like Medrano, died soon after using heroin provided by Johnson, the court concluded that the district court erred in allowing the irrelevant and prejudicial evidence of Custer's death. Accordingly, the court vacated defendants' convictions and sentences, remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

After being placed in removal proceedings, petitioner sought a U visa. However, petitioner could not acquire the visa without a waiver of inadmissibility. Petitioner requested that waiver from USCIS, but USCIS denied the request.The Fourth Circuit granted the petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal, concluding that the DOJ's regulations empower the IJ to consider petitioner's application for an inadmissibility waiver under 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii). The court explained that an IJ's ability to grant a section 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii) waiver is consistent with the statutory and regulatory scheme, which entrusts IJs with the responsibility to determine a petitioner's admissibility in removal proceedings, as well as the forms of relief available. The court remanded for the IJ to determine what relief, if any, to which petitioner is entitled, including whether an inadmissibility waiver is appropriate. View "Jimenez-Rodriguez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Green was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1, after the district court found that Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951, to which Green pled guilty, qualified as a crime of violence under that provision. Five federal courts of appeals have concluded that Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence. The designation increased his sentencing range from 77-96 months to 151-188 months’ imprisonment.The Fourth Circuit vacated Green’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. A robbery offense that, like Hobbs Act robbery, may be committed through force or threats of force against property as well as against persons is not a categorical match with any portion of the Guidelines definition of “crime of violence” set out in section 4B1.2(a). Nor is Hobbs Act robbery a categorical match for “extortion” as enumerated under section 4B1.2(a)(2). View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

After the Circuit City Trustee sought a ruling in 2019 on his liability for quarterly fees assessed under a 2017 Amendment to the bankruptcy fees provisions of the United States Code (28 U.S.C. 1930(a)(6)(B)), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the fees aspect of the 2017 Amendment is unconstitutional. The U.S. Trustee appealed and the Circuit City Trustee cross-appealed, jointly certifying these appeals to the Fourth Circuit, which the court granted and consolidated.The Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the U.S. Trustee in both appeals, reversing the Bankruptcy Opinion's uniformity decision challenged by the U.S. Trustee, and affirming the Opinion's retroactivity decision challenged by the Circuit City Trustee. The court concluded that the 2017 Amendment does not contravene the uniformity mandate of either the Uniformity Clause or the Bankruptcy Clause. The court also concluded that Congress clearly intended for the 2017 Amendment to apply to all disbursements made after its effective date, and it intended for the Amendment to be prospective. Accordingly, the court remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. View "Siegel v. Fitzgerald" on Justia Law

After Charles F. Connor died at the age of 90 of mesothelioma, his son brought a wrongful death action against 22 named defendants. Plaintiff alleges that defendants wrongfully caused Mr. Connor to become exposed to asbestos and develop his fatal mesothelioma cancer. This appeal involves only Covil, a manufacturer and supplier of asbestos insulation. Plaintiff contends that Mr. Connor was exposed to Covil's asbestos products during his time as an employee at Fiber Industries, a polyester production company whose facility contained piping that was wrapped in Covil-supplied asbestos.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Covil, agreeing with the district court that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Mr. Connor was sufficiently exposed to Covil's asbestos to create a genuine dispute regarding causation. The court explained that, under North Carolina law, a plaintiff must prove that defendant's alleged misconduct was a substantial factor causing plaintiff's injury. Even assuming, without deciding, that the nature of the underlying disease is relevant to the application of the frequency, regularity, and proximity test, the court concluded that plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of fact regarding Mr. Connor's exposure to Covil's asbestos products. Furthermore, because the record demonstrates that Mr. Connor was exposed to comparatively little asbestos at Fiber Industries versus his asbestos exposure at Norfolk Southern, plaintiff cannot establish more than a mere possibility that Covil's asbestos products were a substantial cause of Mr. Connor's mesothelioma. View "Connor v. Covil Corp." on Justia Law

After petitioner was convicted of drug and firearm offenses in Georgia, the state pardoned him. However, DHS sought to remove petitioner based on his convictions before the pardon. The IJ ordered petitioner's removal and the BIA dismissed the appeal.The Fourth Circuit dismissed in part and denied in part the petition for review, concluding that petitioner failed to exhaust his argument that pardoned offenses do not qualify as convictions under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. The court also concluded that a pardon waives only the removal grounds specifically enumerated in the Act, and petitioner's pardon does not waive all of the removal grounds proven by the government. View "Tetteh v. Garland" on Justia Law

In 2010, defendant was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment after pleading guilty to various federal narcotics and firearm offenses. In 2019, defendant moved for a reduced sentence under section 404(b) of the First Step Act, contending that his sentence was ten years longer than the current statutory maximum.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a reduced sentence under the Act, concluding that, in light of United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 2020), the district court may only exercise its discretion to reduce or not reduce any given sentence after faithfully considering a number of resentencing factors. The court held that one of those criteria—as is typically true in sentencing—is the applicable statutory maximum sentence. The court explained that, if sentenced today, defendant would be subject to the sentencing ranges set forth in 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C). And as the district court correctly stated in its order, that range sets a maximum mandatory term of 20 years' imprisonment. Therefore, the district court erred by not resentencing defendant to, at most, 20 years' imprisonment. The court also held that when a court exercises discretion to reduce a sentence, the imposition of the reduced sentence must be procedurally and substantively reasonable. On remand, the court instructed the district court to comply with its substantive and procedural reasonableness requirements, including its requirement that it adequately explain its sentencing decision. View "United States v. Collington" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the owner of a chain of pharmacies in Maryland and nearby states, was the subject of a Medicaid fraud prosecution. After the district court dismissed the charges against plaintiff, he filed suit seeking compensatory and punitive damages from multiple defendants. At issue on appeal are two of the district court's preliminary rulings.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the federal constitutional claims, concluding that these claims would extend the Bivens remedy into a new context, and that special factors counsel against an extension to cover intertwined allegations of wrongdoing by prosecutors and criminal investigators in plaintiff's prosecution. However, the court reversed the district court's determination that the state-law claims can move forward against Prosecutor Pascale. Rather, the court found that absolute prosecutorial immunity bars the claims against her. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Annappareddy v. Pascale" on Justia Law