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

Plaintiff, a civilian employee of the Army Corps of Engineers, filed suit challenging the Army's decision to suspend him from his employment pending review of his security clearance. The district court awarded summary judgment to the Army on claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Age Discrimination in Employment Act.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and dismissed the action in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). The court held that review of any of plaintiff's claims requires review of the suspension of his security clearance — a review that necessarily goes to the very heart of the protection of classified information — and thus Egan deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to review each of the claims. Therefore, the district court erred by failing to dismiss these claims outright for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Campbell v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

Defendant was stopped at a routine traffic checkpoint where officers discovered a substantial amount of illegal drugs. After defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute twenty-eight or more grams of crack cocaine, defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by officers, holding that the routine traffic checkpoint fully complied with Fourth Amendment requirements. In this case, the primary purpose of the checkpoint was valid; the roadblock adequately advanced a significant public interest; and the checkpoint was minimally intrusive. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of appellant's 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition seeking relief from his sentence via the savings clause. In United States v. Wheeler, the court set forth a four part test to determine whether an individual can seek relief from an erroneous sentence in a section 2241 habeas corpus petition via the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 2255(e). The district court concluded that appellant could not meet the second prong of the Wheeler test because he filed his first section 2255 motion after the applicable change in settled substantive law, even though that section 2255 motion was resolved before that change in law was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review.The court held that, in the unique circumstance where the change in settled substantive law occurred before a petitioner filed his or her first section 2255 motion, but such change was deemed retroactive after the resolution of petitioner's first section 2255 motion, petitioner satisfies the second prong of the Wheeler test. Accordingly, the court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Braswell v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence and his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. The court held that the officers had probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed in defendant's house, and thus the warrant appropriately authorized the search of the house for evidence of that crime. The court found unpersuasive defendant's argument that the warrant should have been limited in geographic scope because the smoldering marijuana cigarette in the trash can was the likely source of the marijuana odor. Rather, the court held that the presence of one marijuana cigarette in the kitchen did not negate the fair probability that other evidence of the crime of marijuana possession would be found in the house. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and four other drug-trafficking and firearms-related offenses. The court held that there was no error in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence gathered from the traffic stop, because the detective had ample reasonable suspicion of drug distribution, justifying the full length of the stop under the Fourth Amendment; there was no Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation by admitting evidence relating to a recorded phone call between defendant and an informant who did not testify at trial; and the district court did not err by holding that section 403 of the First Step Act does not apply retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal when it was enacted. View "United States v. Jordan" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus relief based on two ineffective assistance of counsel claims previously rejected by the state post-conviction court. The court held that petitioner defaulted on his claims because he failed to raise them to the state court and thus they are unexhausted. Because the new evidence does not fundamentally alter the heart of the two ineffective assistance of counsel claims presented to the state court, the court held that the district court properly deferred to the state court rejection of these claims. Likewise, the court rejected petitioner's third ineffective assistance of counsel claim, holding that he defaulted on this claim by not presenting it to the state court and he failed to make a substantial showing that his trial counsel were ineffective. View "Moore v. Stirling" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated defendant's 37 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States. The court held that the district court's record failed to assure the court that the sentencing court considered at least two of the grounds for defendant's requested variance from the Guidelines range. In this case, defendant argued that a variance was warranted considering his 1995 convictions over-represented his criminal history and created unwarranted sentence disparities. The court wrote that these non-frivolous arguments for a variance required the district court to make a record indicating that the arguments were addressed. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Torres-Reyes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife filed suit against Marriott after he was injured in an affiliated hotel in Milan, Italy. After Marriott failed to timely answer, the district court entered an entry of default. Five days after receiving notice of default, Marriott filed a motion to set aside the default, challenging the district court's personal jurisdiction over Marriott. The district court then set aside the default and subsequently granted Marriott's motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that Marriott's contacts with South Carolina were not sufficient to render it "at home" in South Carolina, and thus the requirements for the exercise of contact-based general jurisdiction were not satisfied. Furthermore, the district court properly concluded that Marriott did not consent to the exercise of general jurisdiction when it obtained a Certificate of Authority to conduct business in the state. Finally, the court held that Marriott's case-related contacts with South Carolina were too tenuous and too insubstantial to constitutionally permit the exercise of specific jurisdiction over Marriott. However, the court vacated the district court's denial of sanctions, remanding the issue for reconsideration. View "Fidrych v. Marriott International, Inc." on Justia Law

Allegis and its two subsidiaries filed suit against four employees to recoup the incentive payments made to them under the company's incentive plan on the ground that the employees failed to satisfy the plan's conditions for payment.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Allegis and order requiring the employees to return the incentive payments that they had already received. The court held that the conditions for payment were legally enforceable and that the record indisputably showed that the former employees did not comply with them. In this case, the employees voluntarily elected to participate in the incentive plan and agreed to abide by the specified conditions for receipt of the incentive payments. Because the employees failed to do so, they were not entitled to retain the incentive payments. View "Allegis Group, Inc. v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Fourth Circuit held that the Board erred in finding that the government rebutted the future-threat presumption. The court explained that it was the government's burden to prove either condition that rebuts the presumption, and the record did not support a finding that it did. Therefore, the court vacated the denial of withholding of removal and remanded for the agency to grant relief on this claim.The court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's CAT application, because the record supported the Board's finding that petitioner did not meet the burden of proof. In this case, a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to find that petitioner proved that there is more than a fifty-percent chance that petitioner's former partner would torture her and that Honduran law enforcement would turn a blind eye. View "Ortez-Cruz v. Barr" on Justia Law