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

Andrew David Krueger was convicted of receipt and possession of child sexual abuse material and sentenced to 78 months’ imprisonment. Krueger appealed his conviction, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered on his electronic devices pursuant to a search warrant. He argued that the search of his devices violated the Fourth Amendment due to alleged delays by law enforcement.The case began in January 2019 when Virginia state police observed illicit online activity at Krueger’s residence. Based on this activity, a state magistrate judge issued a search warrant in November 2019, leading to the seizure of Krueger’s electronic devices. The state police made forensic copies of the devices, which revealed hundreds of images depicting the sexual abuse of minors. Krueger was charged under Virginia law, but the charges were dismissed due to a missing affidavit in the warrant application. Federal officials then took up the prosecution, obtaining a federal search warrant in September 2022 to search the forensic copies of Krueger’s devices.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Krueger’s motion to suppress, finding that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court held that the evidence from January 2019 was not stale by November 2019 and that the delay in obtaining the federal warrant was not unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the federal warrant was supported by probable cause, as the nature of child sexual abuse material and the use of the BitTorrent network indicated that Krueger was likely to retain such material. The court also found that the delay in obtaining the federal warrant did not affect the length of the seizure, as the devices remained in state custody throughout the proceedings. Therefore, the court affirmed Krueger’s conviction. View "United States v. Krueger" on Justia Law

Cory Fitzgerald Sanders, through his company SandTech, LLC, contracted with the federal government to supply teleconference equipment and support services. Sanders won contracts by bidding on the online platform "FedBid" and affirming that he would supply the requested equipment or services according to the contract terms. However, Sanders failed to fulfill these obligations, providing used equipment instead of new, misrepresenting his company's certifications, and using falsified documents to claim higher certification levels. After several contracts were terminated, Sanders formed a new company, CyCorp Technologies, LLC, to continue bidding on federal contracts, again using fraudulent means to secure contracts and conceal the true nature of the equipment provided.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland convicted Sanders of wire fraud, submitting false claims, and submitting a false document. Sanders was sentenced to 45 months in prison. He appealed, arguing that a jury instruction misstated the law and that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for using "sophisticated means" to carry out his fraud.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no error in the jury instructions when considered as a whole, determining that they adequately informed the jury of the required intent and did not mislead or confuse them. The court also upheld the district court's application of the sophisticated means enhancement, noting that Sanders' conduct involved especially complex or intricate offense conduct, including the use of multiple business names, falsified certifications, and blind-shipping to conceal the source of equipment. The Fourth Circuit affirmed both Sanders' convictions and his sentence. View "United States v. Sanders" on Justia Law

Terrence Hammock, a detainee at the Baltimore County Detention Center (BCDC), filed a lawsuit alleging severe violations of his constitutional rights. He claimed that BCDC served him rotten and unsafe food, causing him to get sick multiple times and lose weight. Additionally, Hammock, a practicing Muslim, alleged that he was denied the ability to attend Jum’ah services, a central practice of Islam, throughout his detention from September 2019 to at least March 2022.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed Hammock’s claims. The court found that his allegations regarding the food did not meet the standard of a “serious deprivation of a basic human need” under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. It also held that the denial of Jum’ah services was justified by legitimate penological interests, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court denied Hammock’s motion for appointed counsel, stating that the case had not yet proceeded to discovery or trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in dismissing Hammock’s claims. The appellate court held that Hammock sufficiently pleaded a claim of deliberate indifference based on the conditions of confinement, specifically the provision of rotten and mice-bitten food. The court also found that Hammock adequately pleaded a First Amendment claim, as the defendants did not present a penological interest to justify the denial of Jum’ah services for the entire period in question. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Hammock’s claims and remanded the case for further proceedings, including the appointment of counsel for Hammock. View "Hammock v. Watts" on Justia Law

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