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

The Fund filed suit claiming a delinquent exit from Four-C, a former participating employer, under section 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of Four-C's motion to dismiss, holding that the Fund's governing agreements and Four-C's collective bargaining agreement (CBA) required participating employers to pay an exit contribution when they no longer have a duty to contribute to the Fund due to the expiration of the underlying CBA, and therefore the complaint alleged a viable claim. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment as to the exit contribution claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Board of Trustees v. Four-C-Aire, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion contending that his prior convictions no longer qualified as predicate offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) after the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).The court held that North Carolina common law robbery qualifies as an ACCA predicate under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019), which abrogated its prior holding in United States v. Gardner, 823 F.3d 793 (4th Cir. 2016). The court also held that a conviction under North Carolina law for being an accessory before the fact of armed robbery qualifies as a violent felony because that offense incorporates the elements of armed robbery, which itself is a violent felony. View "United States v. Dinkins" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed class actions arising from a merger agreement between Dominion and SCANA Corporation, a former utility company in which plaintiffs were stockholders. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty in negotiating the merger agreement. After defendants removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), the district court remanded to state court.Defendants challenged the district court's remand orders on appeal. The Fourth Circuit granted the petitions for permission to appeal and reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the the class action lawsuits were properly removed from the state courts and should, pursuant to CAFA, be litigated in the District of South Carolina. View "Dominion Energy, Inc. v. City of Warren Police & Fire Retirement System" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, and possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon. The court held that defendant's prior conviction for distribution of crack cocaine in South Carolina was divisible and subject to the modified categorical approach, and the state offense elements aligned with the federal definitions. Therefore, the district court did not err in ruling that the distribution of crack cocaine conviction constitutes a predicate for the armed career criminal and career offender enhancements.The court also held that defendant's prior Georgia conviction for first-degree arson was a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act and a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines. Accordingly, defendant had the requisite predicate offenses to be sentenced as an armed career criminal under the ACCA. View "United States v. Furlow" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct a clerical error in his Pre-Sentence Report (PSR). The Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in holding that a defendant is categorically barred from relying on Rule 36 to correct a sentence tainted by a clerical error. However, the court nevertheless affirmed the district court's judgment because defendant's three remaining convictions were sufficient to sustain his classification and sentencing as a career offender under USSG 4B1.1. View "United States v. Vanderhorst" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of appellant's motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate his conviction on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. In this case, appellant's attorney erroneously advised him that, if he pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, deportation was a mere possibility that he could fight in immigration court. Rather, conspiracy to distribute cocaine was an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act and a noncitizen convicted of such a crime was subject to mandatory deportation. Therefore, counsel's performance was deficient. Furthermore, the court held that appellant was prejudice based on counsel's deficient performance, because the evidence demonstrated a reasonable probability that, had appellant known the true and certain extent of the consequences of his guilty plea, he would have refused it. View "United States v. Murillo" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence and statements under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In this case, the officer had probable cause to stop defendant and the traffic stop lasted a reasonable amount of time. The court also held that the failure to administer a Miranda warning constituted harmless error because there was an overwhelming amount of physical evidence that was properly seized that would still inculpate defendant in the eyes of any reasonable factfinder. View "United States v. Bernard" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner argued that his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment will be violated if the government retries him on murder charges in state court. Applying the strictest scrutiny review, the court held that the government failed to satisfy its high burden of showing manifest necessity for a mistrial. In this case, the record demonstrated that the government allowed the jury to be empaneled knowing that the crucial witness might not appear to testify, and the state trial court failed to consider possible alternatives to granting the government's mistrial motion. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to grant petitioner habeas relief. View "Seay v. Cannon" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit held that Chapter 313 of Title 18, and 18 U.S.C. 4248 in particular, did not authorize the district court to dismiss the section 4248 proceeding against respondent on the ground that he was found to be mentally incompetent. The court also held that section 4248 does not violate the Due Process Clause and that the risk of an erroneous deprivation of respondent's liberty interest is substantially and adequately mitigated by the broad array of procedures required for a section 4248 commitment, particularly as they apply to incompetent persons. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions that the district court promptly conduct a section 4248 hearing to determine whether respondent is sexually dangerous and therefore must be committed to the custody of the Attorney General. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that defendant, a police officer, used excessive force in arresting plaintiff after an intense hand-to-hand struggle between the men. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's holding on remand that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. The court held that the district court again based its qualified immunity holding on inferences drawn in favor of the officer, but it was obligated to construe the salient facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the party opposing summary judgment.On plaintiff's version of the disputed facts, construed in the light most favorable to him, the court held that a reasonable jury could find a violation of plaintiff's clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, the district court erred in awarding summary judgment to the officer because there remained genuine disputes of fact regarding the officer's entitlement to qualified immunity. View "Harris v. Pittman" on Justia Law