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

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to 78 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. After defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court issued Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). Defendant then filed a supplemental brief raising further constitutional challenges, arguing that Rehaif invalidated his indictment and conviction.The Fourth Circuit applied plain error review and held that the asserted Rehaif errors violated defendant's substantial rights. The court stated that sustaining defendant's conviction under the present circumstances would deprive defendant of several constitutional protections, prohibit him from ever mounting a defense to the knowledge-of-status element, require inappropriate appellate factfinding, and do serious harm to the judicial process. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to notice the errors and vacated defendant's conviction, remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. Medley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) attorneys' analysis of South Carolina law was erroneous and violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments by prolonging his detention. In this case, the SCDC attorneys concluded that the law required plaintiff to serve at least eighty-five percent of his drug-distribution sentence before he could be released. The South Carolina Administrative Law Court agreed, but the South Carolina Court of Appeals did not.The Fourth Circuit held that qualified immunity shields the government attorneys from plaintiff's claims. Assuming that plaintiff's continued detention falls within the ambit of the Eighth Amendment, the court held that the SCDC lawyers were not deliberately indifferent to his plight. In this case, Defendant Florian acted reasonably in interpreting the law and, even if Florian did not, Defendant Tatarsky did not act with deliberate indifference when he approved Florian's memorandum. Therefore, plaintiff failed to make out a constitutional violation and the court dismissed his action. View "Campbell v. Florian" on Justia Law

In this action arising from a contract dispute between the parties, Navy Federal Credit Union filed suit in federal district court against Advantage Assets, asserting only state law claims and invoking diversity jurisdiction. For establishing diversity jurisdiction, Congress provides that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1), a corporation "shall be deemed a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business."The Fourth Circuit held that Navy Federal, a federally chartered credit union, is a citizen of its principal place of business, Virginia. The court explained that 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1)'s text, structure, and context support Navy Federal's contention that a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of the state or foreign state where it has its principal place of business. In this case, section 1332(c)(1) requires the court to interpret and to give effect to the second clause of the statute even when the first clause does not specify a citizenship; the district court's and defendants' understanding of "and" conflicts with circuit precedent; and this approach to section 1332(c)(2) is supported by the Supreme Court's holding in Bankers Trust Co. v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., 241 U.S. 295 (1916). View "Navy Federal Credit Union v. LTD Financial Services, LP" on Justia Law

Defendant's convictions under Va. Code 18.2-248 each qualify as a "controlled substance offense" that may trigger the career-offender enhancement.The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's 10 year term of imprisonment imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of distributing cocaine. The court held that the district court did not erroneously sentence defendant as a career offender under USSG 4B1.1 where defendant's prior Virginia convictions for possession with the intent to distribute heroin fall within the Guidelines' categorical definition of a "controlled substance offense." Therefore, the district court correctly counted those convictions as predicate offenses for the career-offender enhancement. View "United States v. Ward" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision dismissing petitioner's appeal of the IJ's finding that petitioner is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because, during his first seven years of continuous residence after admission to the United States, he committed an offense listed in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2) that rendered him inadmissible.The Supreme Court held, in Barton v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1442 (2020), that conviction of an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) renders a lawful permanent resident "inadmissible" for purposes of Section 1229b(d)(1) even if he is not seeking admission. In this case, because petitioner committed such an offense during his initial seven years of residence after admission to the United States, and was later convicted of that offense, the court held that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Argueta v. Barr" on Justia Law

This criminal case stemmed from Defendant Terry and Brenda Millender's involvement in the Victorious Life Church. The district court granted Brenda's motion for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence to support her convictions for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The district court also conditionally ordered a new trial. The government appealed.The Fourth Circuit dismissed Terry's cross-appeal after his death and remanded the judgment against Terry to the district court for further proceedings. The court reversed the judgment of acquittal as to Brenda's convictions and held that the district court erred in concluding that no reasonable juror could find that Brenda knew of the fraud perpetrated by Micro-Enterprise and Kingdom Commodities; the district court relied on this ground alone to override the jury's guilty verdict as to two counts of wire-fraud conspiracy and two counts of money-laundering conspiracy; a reasonable jury could find that the Millenders not only spent the money but also tried to conceal its nature; and no more is required to sustain the jury's verdict on the three substantive counts of money laundering. The court also vacated the grant of a new trial where, on the record, the court cannot see whether the district court appreciated the limits on its discretion in making the decision. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Millender" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's order denying Proposed Intervenors' renewed motion to intervene in an action brought by the NAACP challenging the validity of Senate Bill 824. S.B. 824 established, inter alia, photographic voter identification requirements for elections in North Carolina.After determining that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, the court held that the Proposed Intervenors have Article III standing to intervene for the purposes of intervention before the district court based on N.C. Gen Stat. 1-72.2 and Supreme Court precedent. The court rejected the arguments of the NAACP and the State Defendants that section 1-72.2 infringes on the powers of the Executive Branch in violation of the North Carolina Constitution's separation of powers provisions.In regard to intervention as a matter of right, the court held that the district court erred in determining that the Proposed Intervenors lacked a sufficient interest in the S.B. 824 litigation without careful consideration of section 1-72.2(a). Therefore, the court remanded for the district court to more fully consider the North Carolina statute in the analysis of the Proposed Intervenors' interest in the litigation. Because the Proposed Intervenors may have interests which may be practically impaired if not permitted to intervene in the action before the district court, the court remanded as to this issue as well. The court further stated that, although it was appropriate for the district court to apply the Westinghouse presumption since the Proposed Intervenors and the State Defendants appear to seek the same ultimate objective, the district court erred in demanding that the Proposed Intervenors overcome that presumption by the heightened standard of a "strong showing." In regard to permissive intervention, the court held that the district court failed to address sections 1-72.2(a) and (b) and 120-32.6. Given the import of those statutes, the court remanded for consideration of the permissive intervention request. View "North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Berger" on Justia Law

Investors filed a claim with FINRA's arbitration division seeking to recover substantial losses from Broker, alleging nine causes of action. Broker counterclaimed, seeking payment of the debt and attorneys' fees. The arbitration panel found in favor of Investors and dismissed Broker's counterclaim. The arbitrators then issued a modified award on remand. The district court subsequently granted Broker's motion to vacate the modified award in favor of the Investors and remanded Broker's counterclaim to a new panel of arbitrators. Investors timely appealed.The Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in vacating the modified award where the arbitrators' imposition of liability against Broker is not in manifest disregard to the law. The court explained that imposing liability based on a contractual obligation to comply with the FINRA rules is, at the very least, an arguable interpretation of the parties' contracts. In this case, Broker executed trades of iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures (VXX) on Investors' portfolio margin accounts, in clear violation of FINRA Rule 4210. Rule 4210 prohibits trades of certain high-risk securities through portfolio margin accounts, including trades of VXX. The court also held that the arbitration panel did not manifestly disregard the law by imposing damages in the amount of Investors' accounts on August 19, 2015. In light of Connecticut law, the court reasoned that the award placed Investors in the position they would have been if the contracts had been properly performed after August 19. Finally, the arbitration panel did not manifestly disregard the law by awarding Investors attorneys' fees. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with instructions to confirm the modified arbitration award. View "Interactive Brokers LLC v. Saroop" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress child pornography images that were seized from his computer pursuant to a search warrant issued by a state magistrate judge. The court held that, even if the Fourth Amendment might require more specificity as to the place to be searched or the items to be seized in some computer searches, defendant failed to convince the court that the Fourth Amendment demanded that the descriptions of the place to be searched and the things to be seized needed to be more specific in this case.The court also affirmed the district court's ruling that the constitutionality of the warrant was unaffected by the superfluous language included at the end of the warrant; affirmed the district court's application of the plain view doctrine to the evidence of child pornography; and rejected defendant's belated request that the court not follow its own prior holding in United States v. Williams, and hold instead that ordinary principles of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, including the plain view doctrine, should not apply to computer searches. View "United States v. Cobb" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit dismissed the County's petition to vacate or set aside the FAA's modified air-traffic procedure, or series of flight routes, that governs westbound departing aircraft at Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (TERPZ-6). The court agreed with the FAA that the petition is untimely under 49 U.S.C. 46110(a) because it was filed well over sixty days after the issuance of the agency's relevant order. In this case, the County unreasonably waited 110 days to demand voluntary relief from the FAA as a first resort, and six months for the agency to come to the table. Therefore, the County's belated effort to engage the FAA in a voluntary fix to the noise impacts associated with TERPZ-6, together with the FAA's belated offer to pursue such a fix, provides no grounds for not filing by the 60th day. View "Howard County v. Federal Aviation Administration" on Justia Law