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

In this case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, defendant Martrey Antwain Newby, who was initially sentenced for six non-violent drug crimes, appealed his sentence modification under the First Step Act of 2018. The district court had included discretionary conditions of supervised release in its written judgment that were not orally announced during the sentencing hearing, which was considered to be an error according to a precedent set by United States v. Rogers (2020). The main issue in this appeal was that the court during Newby's resentencing under the First Step Act, carried forward the same conditions of supervised release that were not orally announced in the initial sentencing hearing.The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court could not have imposed any new discretionary conditions of supervised release in Newby’s First Step Act proceeding, as the only type of modified sentence authorized by the First Step Act is a reduced one. The court also noted that Newby's conditions of supervised release which were never announced in his presence and were part of his written judgment, were nullities according to the Rogers precedent. The court argued that because these conditions were never imposed, they could not be carried forward in the district court's amended judgment.The Fourth Circuit ultimately vacated the amended judgment and remanded for resentencing, upholding the principle that discretionary conditions of supervised release must be orally announced during the sentencing hearing. This decision may be specific to the unique circumstances of this case and may not necessarily apply to all cases involving the First Step Act or conditions of supervised release. View "US v. Newby" on Justia Law

The case concerns the dischargeability of debts under the Bankruptcy Code. The debtor, Lee Andrew Hilgartner, physically assaulted Yasuko Yagi, resulting in two settlement agreements. When Hilgartner failed to pay the agreed amount, Yagi sued to enforce the agreement. Hilgartner filed for bankruptcy, arguing that the debts were dischargeable since they arose from a breach of the settlement agreement, not the underlying tort of assault. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, ruled that the debts were non-dischargeable under section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code, which excepts from discharge debts “for willful and malicious injury” to another. The court held that the debt from the settlement agreement, which arose from a willful and malicious injury, retained the character of the underlying tort. Therefore, the debt, including the principal amount owed, interest on late payments, and attorney's fees incurred in enforcing the agreement and contesting the bankruptcy proceedings, was non-dischargeable. The court reasoned that the entire settlement arose from the same willful and malicious injuries and that the settlement agreement didn't disrupt the causal chain. View "Yagi v. Hilgartner" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Laura Tartaro-McGowan, a clinical manager with Inova Home Health, was terminated after failing to perform direct patient care field visits by a specified date. Tartaro-McGowan, who suffers from chronic arthritis in her knees due to bilateral knee replacement surgeries, sued her employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for failure to accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Inova Home Health, LLC and Alternate Solutions Health Network, LLC.Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, Inova Home Health experienced a severe shortage of field clinicians and informed all staff members, including clinical managers, that they would be required to perform direct patient care field visits. Tartaro-McGowan requested an accommodation to be excused from performing direct patient care field visits due to her physical limitations caused by her chronic arthritis. In response, the defendants proposed an accommodation that involved allowing Tartaro-McGowan to screen and select appropriate visits that would greatly reduce the possibility of injury. Tartaro-McGowan refused this accommodation and was later terminated for not performing any direct patient care field visits by the specified date.On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court determined that Tartaro-McGowan failed to prove the defendants denied her a reasonable accommodation, an essential element of her ADA claim. The court noted that the circumstances surrounding the pandemic were exceptional, and given the severe shortage of field nurses, the defendants' proposed accommodation was reasonable. The court also found that Tartaro-McGowan failed to establish a prima facie case for her discrimination and retaliation claims. View "Tartaro-McGowan v. Inova Home Health, LLC" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, plaintiff Carla J. Kappel, acting on behalf of her deceased ex-husband's estate and as mother to their minor children, sued LL Flooring, Inc., alleging that the company's Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring caused her ex-husband's death due to exposure to formaldehyde.The district court dismissed Kappel's wrongful death lawsuit, arguing that her claim was barred by a settlement agreement that had been reached in connection with two multidistrict litigation (MDL) actions related to LL Flooring's products. The court maintained that the deceased, Mr. Tarabus, was a class member subject to that settlement agreement and thus his claims, including any claims involving bodily injuries or death caused by the subject flooring, had been settled.On appeal, Kappel argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to make the dismissal order and that the MDL settlement agreement did not bar her wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of the children. The Court of Appeals agreed with Kappel's latter argument and held that the settlement agreement failed to resolve Kappel’s wrongful death lawsuit.The Court found that the claims in Kappel's lawsuit, which concerned the bodily injuries Mr. Tarabus experienced and the alleged causal connection between the laminate flooring and his cancer diagnosis, were materially distinct from the claims in the MDL proceedings. Notably, the settlement class representatives had twice made clear that they were not pursuing personal injury claims on a class-wide basis, and at no point did any class representative ever allege or pursue a wrongful death lawsuit.Therefore, the Court vacated the lower court's dismissal of Kappel's lawsuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kappel v. LL Flooring, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves defendant Anthony Gross, who was convicted for unlawful possession of a firearm after shooting and injuring a man in his family's driveway. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina sentenced Gross to 63 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Gross appealed his sentencing, challenging the court's calculation of the sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. He disputed the application of a sentencing enhancement for causing "serious bodily injury" and the use of the aggravated assault guideline. Gross also argued that the court should review its finding of serious bodily injury de novo (from the beginning).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court's finding of serious bodily injury should be reviewed for clear error rather than de novo. The court reasoned that adopting a de novo standard would challenge the authority of fact-finders. The court found that the district court did not err in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines, stating that the injury inflicted by Gross on the victim involved "extreme physical pain," which is sufficient to classify as "serious bodily injury" under the Guidelines.Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision to apply the aggravated assault guideline, as the victim had indeed sustained serious bodily injury. The court underscored the importance of deference to the district court's fact-finding role, emphasizing that it is not the role of the appellate court to reassess the district court's factual findings. The court concluded that the evidence presented was ample for the district court to find that the victim had sustained serious bodily injury, thus affirming Gross's sentence. View "United States v. Gross" on Justia Law

The case concerned Everett Maynard, a police officer in West Virginia, who was convicted of deprivation of rights under color of law. This conviction was based on his use of excessive force against an arrestee, Robert Wilfong, which resulted in Wilfong being hospitalized with a broken nose and lacerations on his upper head. During the trial, witnesses were required to wear face masks due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Maynard appealed his conviction, arguing that the mask requirement violated his Sixth Amendment rights, and that the district court erred in applying sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice and for causing "serious bodily injury."The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. It held that the mask requirement did not violate Maynard's Sixth Amendment right, as the protection against the spread of COVID-19 is an important public policy interest and the reliability of the witnesses’ testimony was assured. This was because the witnesses were under oath, cross-examined, and the jury could observe their demeanor. The court also found no error in the application of sentencing enhancements. The court agreed with the district court's finding that the injuries inflicted on Wilfong constituted "serious bodily injury," and affirmed the application of the obstruction of justice enhancement, finding that a defendant's perjurious testimony at trial is relevant to sentencing because it reflects on a defendant’s criminal history, willingness to obey the law, and general character. View "US v. Maynard" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a motion filed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to transfer a case brought by the state of West Virginia to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or to dismiss it due to improper venue. The case pertains to the EPA's disapproval of West Virginia's State Implementation Plan (SIP), which the state had submitted as part of its obligation under the Clean Air Act to address the emission of gases contributing to the formation of ground-level ozone. The EPA had disapproved West Virginia's SIP because it found that the plan did not sufficiently reduce ozone-forming emissions that were adversely affecting air quality in downwind states. The Fourth Circuit court also granted the state of West Virginia's motion to stay the EPA's final action pending the outcome of its petition for review. The court's decision on venue was based on its interpretation of the Clean Air Act, which stipulates that the venue for review of EPA actions depends on whether the action is nationally applicable or locally or regionally applicable. The court concluded that the EPA's disapproval of West Virginia's SIP was based on circumstances particular to West Virginia and therefore was locally or regionally applicable. View "State of West Virginia v. EPA" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Chamber of Commerce and three other trade associations sued to stop the enforcement of a new state tax in Maryland known as the Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax Act. The law requires large technology companies to pay a tax based on gross revenue they earn from digital advertising in the state. The plaintiffs alleged that the Act violates the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the First Amendment. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed three of the counts as barred by the Tax Injunction Act, which prevents federal courts from stopping the collection of state taxes when state law provides an adequate remedy. The court dismissed the fourth count on mootness grounds after a state trial court declared the Act unconstitutional in a separate proceeding. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the first three counts, but vacated the judgment to the extent it dismissed those counts with prejudice, ordering that the dismissal be entered without prejudice. The appellate court also vacated the dismissal of the fourth count and remanded for further proceedings, as the plaintiffs' First Amendment challenge to the Act's prohibition on passing the tax onto consumers was not moot. View "Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Lierman" on Justia Law

The court case involves defendants Juan Alberto Ortiz-Orellana and Minor Perez-Chach, who were convicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering statute (VICAR). Ortiz and Perez were part of a gang known as MS-13 and were separately charged with murders related to their involvement in the gang in Maryland. Ortiz was also convicted of VICAR conspiracy to commit murder, discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and murder resulting from the same crime. Perez, on the other hand, was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and an alien in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Both defendants appealed their convictions and sentences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the government seizure of historical cell site location information (CSLI) without a warrant did not violate the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights due to the good faith exception. The court also upheld the use of summary exhibits and denied the defendants' claim that their sentences were substantially unreasonable. The court agreed with Ortiz that his firearm convictions must be vacated because the underlying offenses for each VICAR count could not qualify as a "crime of violence" after a recent ruling. The court also rejected Ortiz's claim that his RICO and VICAR convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. As a result, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for resentencing on certain counts. View "US v. Ortiz-Orellana" on Justia Law

Elaine Neidig, individually and on behalf of a class, sued Valley Health System, a health care provider, for unfair and deceptive practices, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. Neidig had received three mammograms at Valley Health's Winchester Medical Center between March 2016 and June 2019. In July 2019, federal inspectors found that the center's staff were not correctly positioning or compressing women's breasts during mammograms, leading to serious image quality deficiencies. Valley Health then had to alert all at-risk patients, including Neidig, of the mammography quality problems. Neidig, who did not allege any physical or emotional harm resulting from the low-quality mammograms, sued Valley Health in August 2022. Valley Health moved to dismiss the case on the basis that it was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations provided by the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act. The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia agreed with Valley Health and dismissed Neidig's claims as untimely. Neidig appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.Upon review, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the case presented a novel issue of state law that needed to be addressed by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. The issue was whether a plaintiff's claims can fall under the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act if the plaintiff does not claim any form of physical or emotional injury. The Fourth Circuit certified this question to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for resolution. View "Neidig v. Valley Health System" on Justia Law