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

At issue was whether a bankruptcy court may strip off valueless liens on a Chapter 13 debtor's principal residence when no proof of claims have been filed. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's refusal to strip the liens. The Fourth Circuit reversed and held that the liens may be stripped regardless of whether proof of claims has been filed. In this case, the liens at issue were entirely without value making the creditor the holder of an unsecured claim under section 1322(b). View "Burkhart v. Grigsby" on Justia Law

At issue was whether a bankruptcy court may strip off valueless liens on a Chapter 13 debtor's principal residence when no proof of claims have been filed. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's refusal to strip the liens. The Fourth Circuit reversed and held that the liens may be stripped regardless of whether proof of claims has been filed. In this case, the liens at issue were entirely without value making the creditor the holder of an unsecured claim under section 1322(b). View "Burkhart v. Grigsby" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether claims in an underlying personal injury suit against two contractors were covered under policies issued by Amerisure, in which the contractors were additional insureds. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that Amerisure improperly relied on a policy exclusion to avoid its duty to defend, and that Amerisure was liable under the terms of its policies to pay the full cost of the settlement plus prejudgment interest. The court vacated the district court's judgment with respect to defense fees and costs, and held that Amerisure was liable for the full amount of those fees and costs because Continental did not have an independent duty to defend in the underlying lawsuit. View "Continental Casualty Co. v. Amerisure Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of appellant's savings clause request and dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition. The court held that appellant satisfied the requirements of the savings clause pursuant to its decision in In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000), because a retroactive change in the law, occurring after the time for direct appeal and the filing of his first section 2255 motion, rendered his applicable mandatory minimum unduly increased, resulting in a fundamental defect in his sentence. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions that appellant's section 2241 petition be considered on the merits. View "United States v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Lee Hall and Mark Landersman's convictions for criminal conspiracy and, as to Hall, unlawful conversion of government funds. Hall was the former Director of Intelligence for the Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy, and Landersman was a machinist from California. The district court found that Hall facilitated the purchase of hundreds of firearm suppressors from Landersman, Hall's boss’s brother, for over $1.6 million in government funds and that the transaction was illegal. The court explained that, because some of the challenges raised on appeal relied on classified government records, the district court and this court conducted proceedings pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 18 U.S.C. app. 3, 1–16. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants and rejected defendants' numerous challenges. Accordingly, the court found no reversible error in the classified and unclassified proceedings. View "United States v. Landersman" on Justia Law

The district court granted DIRECTV’s motion to reverse pierce the corporate veil, finding that Randy Coley's limited liability companies were alter egos of Mr. Coley and were therefore subject to execution of DIRECTV's judgment against him. At issue was whether application of Delaware law in this case permitted the remedy of reverse piercing a corporate veil of an LLC, when the LLC has been determined to be the alter ego of its sole member. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to allow this remedy, based on the court's consideration of existing Delaware law and of the overwhelming evidence that the LLCs at issue were alter egos of Mr. Coley. The court also affirmed the balance of the district court's judgment. View "Coley v. DIRECTV, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff's appeal from the district court's dismissal with prejudice of her complaint. Like the plaintiff in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1703, 1712-15 (2017), plaintiff secured a voluntary dismissal of her complaint in order to seek an immediate appeal from an otherwise interlocutory order. The court found Justice Ginsburg's opinion in Microsoft instructive, where Justice Ginsburg characterized the appeal in that case as arising from a voluntary-dismissal tactic that contravened the final-judgment rule embodied in 28 U.S.C. 1291. In this case, plaintiff also sought to transform an otherwise interlocutory order into a section 1291 final decision. Therefore, the court held that the dismissal order secured by plaintiff was not an appealable final decision under section 1291 and the court lacked appellate jurisdiction. View "Keena v. Groupon, Inc." on Justia Law

In addition to federal officers, the "egregious violation" exclusionary rule also applied in civil deportation proceedings to state and local officers. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's rejection of petitioner's motion to suppress statements he made to state officers and ICE and ordering his voluntary departure. The court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the Maryland Transportation Authority Police (MdTAP) officers did not use coercion, threats, or force towards plaintiff. In this case, at most, an MdTAP officer's questioning of petitioner was aggressive, but the officers showed no indication of threatening or violent behavior such that petitioner lacked the option to not answer any questions regarding his immigration status. View "Sanchez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit held that the main questions at issue in this appeal —concerning both the scope and limit of the Insurers' duties to defend and indemnify WECCO—were answered over a decade ago in In re Wallace & Gale Co., 385 F.3d 820, 833–34 (4th Cir. 2004). The court denied WECCO's request to either consider these questions anew or certify them to the Maryland Court of Appeals. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment and rejected WECCO's challenges to the district court's interpretation of the completed-operations hazard to apply to bodily injury stemming from an individual's exposure to asbestos during a WECCO operation that was completed at the time the insurance policy took effect, regardless of whether such operation was ongoing when the individual was first exposed; decision to place the burden on WECCO to prove that an asbestos related bodily injury claim was not subject to a policy's aggregate limit; determination that St. Paul properly classified certain claims as "completed operations" claims; declaration that the aggregate limits of St. Paul's policies had been exhausted; and conclusion, in the alternative, that most of WECCO's breach-of-contract claims were time-barred. View "The Walter E. Campbell Co. v. United States Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court applied a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) based on defendant's prior conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1959(a)(5) for conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering. The court held that conspiracy under section 1959(a)(5) did not require an overt act and was therefore broader than generic conspiracy. Therefore, defendant's section 1959(a)(5) conviction could not support his enhanced sentence because it was not categorically a crime of violence. View "United States v. McCollum" on Justia Law