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

After BNT, a minority-owned television network, was granted and then denied an economic development loan from the City, BNT filed suit alleging, among other things, claims for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court concluded that BNT's factual allegations were so insubstantial as to render its claim implausible, and therefore dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court misinterpreted and misapplied the controlling pleading standard. In this case, the key issue was not whether the City would contract with a minority-owned business, but whether the City would contract with BNT on the same conditions and under substantially the same circumstances as it would with a nonminority-owned business. BNT has plausibly pled that the conditions under which the City was willing to grant it a loan were more stringent than those the City applied to similarly situated white-owned applicants. Therefore, the district court erred in dismissing BNT's claim of discrimination at the pleading stage. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Woods v. City of Greensboro" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Agadir in Grayson O's trademark and unfair competition action. Grayson O sells products designed to protect hair from heat during styling, and owns a federal trademark registration for the mark "F 450." The Fourth Circuit found that Grayson O's mark was both conceptually and commercially weak; even if "450" was a separable, dominant part of Grayson O's mark, given the many other differences between Grayson O's and Agadir's marks, the district court correctly concluded that the marks were not similar; Grayson O failed to demonstrate that Agadir had an intent to infringe; and Grayson O failed to present evidence of actual confusion. View "Grayson O Company v. Agadir International" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit in state court against Allstate after it denied coverage for damages caused by Hurricane Irene to plaintiffs' waterfront home. Allstate removed to federal court, raising a statute of limitations defense. The district court did not address the limitations issue and ultimately entered judgment for plaintiffs. The Fourth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was time barred because they did not file the complaint within one year of the denial of coverage, as required by the National Food Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA), 42 U.S.C. 4001(a), and its regulations. Plaintiffs' argument that the statute should be tolled by their filing of a complaint in state court is foreclosed by Shofer v. Hack Co. Furthermore, the facts neither support a forfeiture or a waiver on behalf of Allstate. The Fourth Circuit also concluded that plaintiffs' claim for bad faith handling of their insurance claim under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1 et seq., was preempted by federal law and therefore barred. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Woodson v. Allstate Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit denied a petition for review of a final order of removal, concluding that Maryland third degree burglary qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). The Fourth Circuit explained that Maryland's third degree burglary statute, breaking and entering a dwelling of another, with the intent to commit a crime, implicates moral values beyond the duty to obey the law and inherently is base, vile, or depraved. The act of breaking and entering a dwelling, with the intent to commit any crime, necessarily involves conduct that violates an individual's reasonable expectation that her personal living and sleeping space will remain private and secure. The Fourth Circuit reasoned that an individual's expectation that her dwelling will remain private, secure, and free from intruders intending to commit a crime is violated regardless whether the dwelling is occupied at the time of the burglary. View "Uribe v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of defendant's post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial, and the district court's judicial notice of a portion of the USCIS website. Defendant was convicted on two counts of unlawful procurement of naturalization. In this case, the record contained sufficient evidence of defendant's knowing misstatements regarding his conviction of federal crimes, and the district court acted well within its discretion when it took judicial notice of the facts contained on the government website. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of numerous charges stemming from her submission of fraudulent immigration and tax filings, concluding that the district court correctly admitted evidence obtained following a search of defendant's home pursuant to a validly issued warrant. In this case, the seizure of over $41,000 in cash did not exceed the scope of the warrant where the warrant and supporting affidavit made clear that investigators were authorized to seize evidence of perjury and marriage or immigration fraud during their search, and the seizure of the cash did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Defendant's contention that the government failed to meet its burden of proving the tax and wire fraud charges against defendant beyond a reasonable doubt lacked merit because defendant's argument misunderstands the nature of the government's charges and the evidence presented against her at trial. View "United States v. Kimble" on Justia Law

Social security survivors' benefits are a thing of value of the United States that can support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 641. Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the Fourth Circuit concluded that substantial evidence supported defendant's conviction for theft of government property beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the jury could reasonably infer from two denied benefits applications that defendant had a motive to file under a different benefits program to again attempt to obtain benefits to which he was not entitled. Finally, the district court's trial management was reasonable and far from an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kiza" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss a charge under the murder-for-hire statute, 18 U.S.C. 1958, holding that the manufactured jurisdiction doctrine had no bearing in this case. The Fourth Circuit explained that each of defendant's voluntary acts was sufficient to support her criminal culpability under section 1958, and they were not somehow tainted or discounted by a government informer's initial text. Furthermore, the district court did not err in establishing and considering 120 months as the guidelines range. The district court considered the parties' sentencing arguments and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence, with specific consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and defendant's downward variance request. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Beckles v. United States held that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause and therefore that USSG 4B1.2(a)(2)'s residual clause is not void for vagueness. Based on Beckles, the Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence, rejecting his vagueness challenge to USSG 4B1.2(a), and concluding that defendant's North Carolina conviction for attempting and conspiring to commit first-degree burglary qualifies as a crime of violence under USSG 4B1.2(a)(2). View "United States v. Mack" on Justia Law

The court affirmed the dismissal of Meridian's breach of contract suit against defendants, holding that the claim was time-barred under Virginia's five-year statute of limitations for contract actions because the parties acknowledged that more than five years passed between when the alleged injury accrued and Meridian's complaint. The court concluded that it may reach defendants' affirmative defense in reviewing the district court's dismissal of the action, because all facts necessary to decide whether defendants' defense applies appeared on the face of the complaint. The court rejected Meridian's claim that the six-year statute of limitations for contract suits brought against the United States should apply in this case, determining that defendants were private corporations, not government instrumentalities. In the alternative, the claim would still fail because the document at issue, a memorandum of understanding (MOU), was generally an unenforceable agreement to agree under Virginia law. Although some of the MOU's provisions may have been binding on the parties, Meridian has not demonstrated that defendants breached any of them. View "Meridian Investments, Inc. v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage" on Justia Law