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

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of appellants' motion to compel arbitration. The complaint alleged claims that were predicated on a massive insurance contract steering and kickback fraud conspiracy that spanned the period from 2001 to 2016.The court held that the district court failed to resolve -- in the proper manner -- factual disputes regarding whether Berkeley Schools agreed to arbitrate the claims alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, 9 U.S.C. 4 requires that those disputes must be resolved in trial proceedings and thus the court remanded. View "Berkeley County School District v. HUB International Limited" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of assault resulting in bodily injury to a victim under 16 years of age. The court held that defendant's sentence of five years probation and 200 hours of community service was procedurally unreasonable, because the district court failed to provide an explanation in support of its sentence sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Provance" on Justia Law

A conviction under South Carolina's voyeurism statute constitutes a sex offense requiring registration under the Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORNA). The Fourth Circuit declined to apply the section 2246 definitions of "sexual act" and "sexual contact" outside of their place in Title 18 Chapter 109A, in the absence of statutory language to do so. Rather, the court chose to define SORNA's use of these terms in accordance with their ordinary meaning. Consequently, the court explained that a violation of the voyeurism statute—which does not require physical contact, but does require the voyeuristic act to be in furtherance of "arousing or gratifying sexual desire"—is a criminal offense involving a "sexual act" or "sexual contact" that requires registration under SORNA. Accordingly, the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss was proper and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Helton" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for drug conspiracy and related offenses. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence a state court record concerning defendant's 2013 state conviction, because it was intrinsic to the drug conspiracy and not subject to a Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) inquiry. The court rejected defendant's Napue claim, because he failed to show that the witness's testimony was false. View "United States v. Bush" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to distribute fifty grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant conspired to distribute the threshold drug quantity of fifty grams of methamphetamine.The court also held that, although the district court's jury instructions on the drug conspiracy offense constituted plain error, the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Finally, the court held that defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were not violated by the admission of business record certifications from Facebook, Google, and Time Warner Cable; the district court did not err by admitting the bad acts evidence relating to his prior threats and assaults; and defendant's remaining contentions of error were rejected. View "United States v. Denton" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit dismissed the petition for judicial review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's application for asylum. The court held that the BIA's July 9 remand order did not constitute a final order of removal within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1252, and thus the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition. In this case, the BIA remanded petitioner's case to the IJ for background checks, and thus the BIA order underlying the petition for judicial review was not a final order. View "Kouambo v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for charges related to his operation of a prostitution ring. The court rejected defendant's numerous claims of error, holding that the trial court was within its discretion to deny the motion to continue; the district court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with the trial when defendant was absent for a single morning session of his week-long trial; even if the district court's denial of a motion to exclude the expert testimony of a software quality assurance engineer was error, the error was harmless; the district court did not clearly err in failing to inquire about whether defendant wanted to testify; although the district court erred by instructing the jury as to Count Seven, the court could not say that declining to correct the errors would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, nor would it result in a miscarriage of justice; and the district court was within its discretion to deny defendant's motion to withdraw as counsel. Finally, the court rejected defendant's four claims of sentencing errors. View "United States v. Muslim" on Justia Law

Advantage Health filed suit, alleging that HHS's continuing recoupment of overpayments before completion of the severely delayed administrative process was denying it procedural due process. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining HHS from withholding Medicare payments to Advantage Health to effectuate recoupment of any alleged overpayments.The Fourth Circuit held that the injunction entered in this collateral proceeding, which prohibits HHS from recouping overpayments in accordance with applicable law, was inappropriately entered because the delay of which Advantage Health complains could have been and still can be avoided by bypassing an ALJ hearing and obtaining judicial review on a relatively expeditious basis, as Congress has provided. Therefore, this administrative review process did not deny Advantage Health procedural due process and thus Advantage Health has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. View "Accident, Injury and Rehabilitation, PC v. Azar" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for sex trafficking and related crimes, holding that the warrantless forensic searches of defendant's digital devices did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.Where a search at the border is so intrusive as to require some level of individualized suspicion, the object of that suspicion must bear some nexus to the purposes of the border search exception in order for the exception to apply. The court agreed with defendant that the border search exception did not extend to the challenged searches, because no such nexus existed here. However, the court held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule barred suppression. In this case, law enforcement relied on an established and uniform body of precedent allowing warrantless border searches of digital devices at the time of the search. View "United States v. Aigbekaen" on Justia Law

All defendants who are serving sentences for violations of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(iii), and who are not excluded pursuant to the expressed limitations in Section 404(c) of the First Step Act, are eligible to move for relief under that Act. District courts then "may," at their discretion, "impose a reduced sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed."The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act. The court held that 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(B) is the appropriate vehicle for a First Step Act motion, and eligibility under the Act turns on the proper interpretation of a "covered offense." The court agreed with defendant and adopted his understanding that he is eligible to seek relief under the Act because, "before August 30, 2010," he "committed" a "violation" of 21 U.S.C. 841(a) and (b)(1)(B)(iii), and "the statutory penalties" for that statute "were modified by" Section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to consider defendant's motion. View "United States v. Wirsing" on Justia Law