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

Defendant appeals her conviction for one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and mail fraud and ten counts of bank fraud for her role in originating and submitting fraudulent mortgage loan applications. Defendant raised several issues on appeal. The court concluded that defendant failed to establish any Sixth Amendment error where the district court allowed the government's pretrial seizure of defendant's assets where the seizure did not prevent defendant from being represented by her counsel of choice; the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction; the court rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges; the evidence was sufficient to support the bank fraud convictions; the court rejected defendant's argument that the government constructively amended the indictment; the district court had jurisdiction to enter the preliminary and final forfeiture orders after the October 3 hearing; and the court rejected defendant's challenge to the district court’s substitute property order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Chittenden" on Justia Law

After defendant pled guilty to distribution of a quantity of cocaine base, he appealed the district court's application of the modified categorical approach when it determined that his prior state court attempt conviction qualified as a controlled substance offense under USSG 4B1.2. Defendant also argued that West Virginia’s general attempt statute criminalized more conduct than a generic controlled substance offense. The court concluded that the district court erred in applying the modified categorical approach to the West Virginia general attempt statute; held that sentencing courts must compare the state and generic elements of such statutes as well as the elements of the underlying substantive statutory offense when determining whether a prior attempt conviction qualifies as a controlled substance offense; and concluded that the district court failed to make these required comparisons. The court explained, however, that under the correct approach, defendant's attempt conviction properly constitutes a controlled substance offense under USSG 4B1.2. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Dozier" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, Sears, alleging misrepresentation, constructive fraud, and infliction of emotional distress. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that Sears improperly administered life insurance benefits. The district court dismissed the complaint. Sonoco Prods. Co. v. Physicians Health Plan, Inc. held that section 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a), preempts a state law claim when: the plaintiff has standing, the claim must fail under the scope of an ERISA provision that can enforce via section 502(a), and the claim must not be capable of resolution without an interpretation of the contract governed by federal law. Because plaintiff's claims meets all three prongs of the Sonoco test, the court concluded that ERISA completely preempts his claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Prince v. Sears Holdings Corp." on Justia Law

After defendant was charged with illegal reentry and failure to register as a sex offender, he argued that his underlying convictions for three counts of indecent liberties with a child under North Carolina law were unconstitutional in light of Padilla v. Kentucky. Padilla held that the Sixth Amendment requires a defense attorney to advise a non-citizen client of the immigration risks of a guilty plea. A North Carolina court, relying on Padilla, did vacate defendant's convictions in 2015. The court concluded that the alleged constitutional deficiency in defendant's state convictions had no effect on his subsequent prosecution for illegal reentry. The court explained that because Padilla does not apply retroactively to defendants like defendant, convicted before the case was decided, defendant's convictions remain valid today as a matter of federal law, and his attempt to collaterally attack his 2009 removal is unavailing on that ground alone. Because the district court properly denied defendant's motion to vacate the 2009 removal order and to withdraw his guilty plea to the charge of illegal reentry, and because there is no error in the district court’s reliance on the vacated state convictions in determining defendant's sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Moreno-Tapia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her husband filed a products liability suit against Ethicon after she experienced complications from the implantation of a transvaginal mesh medical device. On appeal, Ethicon challenges the denial of its post-trial renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not commit reversible error where plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's general verdict for plaintiffs on their design defect, failure to warn, and loss of consortium claims. In this case, the district court did not err by excluding evidence of the FDA's section 510(k) evaluation process; excluding the FDA Advisory Committee evidence; and excluding evidence of the Prolene suture's regulatory history. View "Huskey v. Ethicon, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.; the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. 3-401 et seq.; and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. 3-501 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to Commercial because Commercial did not jointly employ plaintiffs where J.I. and Commercial entered into a traditionally recognized legitimate contractor-subcontractor relationship and did not intend to avoid compliance with the FLSA or Maryland law. The court concluded, however, that the legitimacy of a business relationship between putative joint employers and the putative joint employers’ good faith are not dispositive of whether entities constitute joint employers for purposes of the FLSA. The court held that joint employment exists when (1) two or more persons or entities share, agree to allocate responsibility for, or otherwise codetermine—formally or informally, directly or indirectly—the essential terms and conditions of a worker’s employment and (2) the two entities’ combined influence over the essential terms and conditions of the worker’s employment render the worker an employee as opposed to an independent contractor. Applying this test to this case, the court concluded that Commercial jointly employed plaintiffs for purposes of the FLSA and the analogous Maryland law. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two groups of satellite television technicians, filed suit alleging that defendants, through a web of agreements with various affiliated and unaffiliated service providers, are jointly and severally liable for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. The district court dismissed the pleadings because plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that DIRECTV and DirectSat jointly employed plaintiffs. The court concluded that the district court relied on out-of-circuit authority that the court has since rejected as unduly restrictive in light of the broad reach of the FLSA. The court concluded that, under the appropriate legal standards, plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to make out a plausible claim that defendants jointly employed them as DIRECTV technicians; defendants may be held jointly and severally liable in the event that plaintiffs performed uncompensated overtime work for defendants during plaintiffs’ respective periods of employment; and the court reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' FLSA and Maryland state-law claims against defendants because they have sufficiently pleaded that DIRECTV jointly employed them as satellite technicians, and that they are owed some amount of unpaid compensation. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Hall v. DIRECTV, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of structuring cash transactions to evade reporting requirements and agreed to forfeit significant assets. The court concluded that the district court did not err in calculating defendant's sentencing range by applying a two level enhancement for his leadership role under USSG 3B1.1(c), and a two-level enhancement for his abuse of a position of trust under USSG 3B1.3. The court also concluded that the district court fully informed defendant of the terms of the plea agreement and its provision for waiver of any challenge to his agreement to forfeit assets. In any event, defendant failed to establish that his substantial rights were affected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Agyekum" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action against HealthPort in state court seeking damages and injunctive relief, asserting several statutory consumer protection claims and common law claims. Specifically, plaintiff challenges HealthPort’s collection of $23 in sales tax on the sale of medical records. HealthPort removed the case to federal court. The court concluded that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341, and the related principle of federal-state comity operate to deprive the court of jurisdiction. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment of dismissal and remanded to the district court with instructions to return the action to state court. View "Gwozdz v. Healthport Technologies, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Belarus, seeks review of the BIA's final order of removal based on petitioner's Virginia involuntary manslaughter offense, which the agency deemed a categorical crime involving moral turpitude. The court explained that an involuntary manslaughter conviction can be secured in Virginia without proving a conscious disregard of risks attendant to the offender’s conduct; such a conviction can be predicated on proof that the offender failed to appreciate or be aware of the risks emanating from his conduct. Therefore, the court concluded that Virginia’s involuntary manslaughter offense is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and vacated, remanding for further proceedings. View "Sotnikau v. Lynch" on Justia Law