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

The Fourth Circuit denied a petition for review of an order of removal issued by DHS. Petitioner was removed without the benefit of a hearing on the basis that he entered the United States under the Visa Waiver Program and waived his right to contest removal under the terms of that program. The court found that petitioner was admitted under the Visa Waiver Program based on the administrative record amassed by DHS; the evidence was sufficient to support DHS's claim that petitioner waived his right to a hearing prior to removal based on the manner of his entry, coupled with evidence of the admission process under the program; and, in the alternative, petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice if his waiver was not knowing and voluntary. View "Nardea v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in an action alleging that plaintiff's suspension, investigation, and recommendation of dismissal from his job as a high school teacher were in retaliation for his political speech. The court held that the school board was not subject to municipal liability and defendant was unable to present a prima facie case against the remaining defendants. In this case, the school and its administrators were investigating and taking disciplinary action for the legitimately inappropriate behavior to which plaintiff has admitted. View "Penley v. McDowell County Board of Education" on Justia Law

After Melvin Lawhorn was fatally shot by police, his personal representative filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and various state laws against the county, the sheriff's office, and others. In this case, an officer leaned inside the passenger-side window to grab Lawhorn when Lawhorn successfully shifted the truck into drive and the truck began moving forward. The officer shot Lawhorn. The court affirmed the district court's grant of qualified immunity to defendants, holding that existing law did not clearly establish that an officer leaning into the window of a moving truck violated the Fourth Amendment by using deadly force. The court also affirmed the district court's fee sanction award that was imposed for defendants' discovery misconduct. View "Brown v. Elliot" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was arrested for flying his glider plane over a nuclear plant, he filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants had violated his civil rights under color of state law, denying him the "freedom of movement, freedom from arrest and detention, and freedom to conduct a lawful activity," in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff also alleged state law claims of false imprisonment, false arrest, negligence, and civil conspiracy. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the district court did not err in determining that the release-dismissal agreement was enforceable and thus plaintiff waived his right to sue the Darlington County Sheriff's Office, the Sheriff, and the deputies; that Duke Energy and its vice president were private actors not operating "under color of" state law as required for liability under section 1983; and plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by federal law's exclusive regulation of nuclear safety. View "Cox v. Duke Energy" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The court rejected defendants' request to utilize Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016), to rule that the Supreme Court has clarified its earlier cases to say that materiality — in any criminal fraud context — requires proof that the false statements and misrepresentations were subjectively material. Therefore, the district court did not err in failing to require the misrepresentations in the SunTrust loan applications to be material to SunTrust as the fraud victim. The court reasoned that the correct test for materiality — as the district court recognized — is an objective one, which measures a misrepresentation's capacity to influence an objective "reasonable lender," not a renegade lender with a demonstrated habit of disregarding materially false information. Therefore, the challenged jury instructions regarding the materiality element were not erroneous. Furthermore, the district court did not erroneously instruct the jury on the element of intent to defraud. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to instruct the jury prior to the deliberations and by permitting the jury to find guilt by association. View "United States v. Raza" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of their complaint against Schmidt Baking Co. under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. Although professional motor carriers, like Schmidt Baking Co., generally are exempt from the FLSA's requirement that employers pay "overtime" wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, Congress recently waived this exemption for motor carrier employees whose work, in whole or in part, affects the safety of vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less. The Fourth Circuit held that plaintiffs fell within the group of employees protected by the waiver and were thus entitled to overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the FLSA claims, but affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' separate claims brought under Maryland law. View "Schilling, Jr. v. Schmidt Baking Co., Inc." on Justia Law

After deputies shot and killed David Hensley outside of his home, plaintiffs filed suit against the deputies in their individual and official capacities under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and North Carolina law. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to the deputies based on qualified immunity and state defenses. The court held that a jury could conclude that Hensley never raised his gun, never threatened the deputies, and never received a warning command. Under these circumstances, the deputies were not in any immediate danger and were not entitled to shoot Hensley. Therefore, the deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity. In regard to plaintiffs' state law claims, the district court correctly concluded that plaintiffs' assault claim could proceed as a matter of law. Furthermore, the deputies were not entitled to public official immunity under North Carolina law on plaintiffs' negligent infliction of emotional distress claim because they acted contrary to their duty to use deadly force only when reasonably necessary. View "Hensley v. Price" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 as to petitioner's Brady claim, holding that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the claim without holding an evidentiary hearing because it failed to assess the plausibility of that claim through the proper legal lens. In this case, withheld witness materials were exculpatory and impeaching evidence that was unquestionably subject to disclosure under Brady. The court reasoned that, by failing to disclose such evidence before trial, and unjustifiably continuing to resist its disclosure for years thereafter, the prosecution arrogated to itself a central function belonging to the criminal jury and pursued its roles as adversary to the exclusion of its role as architect of a just trial. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Juniper v. Zook" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Maguire Financial's amended complaint in a securities fraud class action. The court held that Maguire Financial's amended complaint failed to adequately allege scienter where a statement by the CEO of PowerSecure, to securities analysts that the company had secured a "contract renewal" could not form the basis for liability under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(2). View "Maguire Financial, LP v. Powersecure International, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1594; sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a); and enticement of a minor for illegal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b). The court held that the district court did not err in instructing the jury as to the requisite mental state required to convict under sections 1591(a) and 1594(c); the court rejected defendant's contention that the district court should have instructed the jury that it must find that he had actual knowledge that the victim was a minor for purposes of a conviction under section 2422(b); and the evidence was sufficient to show that defendant knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the victim was under the age of eighteen years. View "United States v. Banker" on Justia Law