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

Petitioner, a native of Haiti, was ordered removed on the grounds that he is an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony. Because the Notice of Intent, Form I-851, expressly prompts aliens to raise only factual challenges to removal, the court held that petitioner was not required to raise his legal challenge to removal in order to meet the exhaustion requirement of INA 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1). Consequently, the court has jurisdiction to consider the petition for review. On the merits, the court concluded that nothing rebuts the common-law presumption when interpreting the term “conspiracy” in the INA. Accordingly, under the categorical approach, a state-law conspiracy need not require proof of an overt act to be classified as an “aggravated felony.” Therefore, the court held that DHS properly classified petitioner’s conviction and the court denied the petition for review. View "Etienne v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), against the United States, alleging that prison officials were negligent in failing to protect him from an attack by several other inmates. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court’s holding that the prison officials’ discretionary decision not to separate plaintiff from his attackers is subject to the discretionary function exception of the FTCA, depriving the court of jurisdiction over that claim. In regard to plaintiff's claim that prison officials did not perform the searches of other inmates properly, the court remanded for additional discovery because jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the merits of that claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Rich v. United States" on Justia Law

In an action asserting denial of overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the New York labor law (NYLL), N.Y. Lab. Law 650 et seq.; N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, 142–2.2, GEICO appealed the district court's grant of judgment against them and plaintiffs cross-appealed several rulings related to the remedy awarded. The court agreed with plaintiffs' argument that, in the absence of an award of liquidated damages, the district court abused its discretion in declining to award prejudgment interest on the basis that GEICO acted in good faith in treating its Investigators as exempt. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s decision denying prejudgment interest under the FLSA and NYLL and remanded so that the district court may award prejudgment interest. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Calderon v. GEICO General Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of possession of a firearm as a felon. Defendant received an enhanced 15 year sentence as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(e). After defendant's sentencing, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Johnson v. United States. In light of Johnson, defendant's two North Carolina state convictions for Felony Speeding to elude Arrest no longer constitute valid Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), predicates. Each of defendant's convictions, for which he faced a 19 month term of imprisonment, qualifies as a prior felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Barlow" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to one count of possessing with intent to distribute an unspecified quantity of crack cocaine. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that the search was unconstitutional due to the intentional decision of the officer to tell defendant that there was a search warrant, even though he knew that his statement was untrue. The good faith exception to the exclusionary ruled does not apply in this case where there can be no doubt that a reasonable officer would know that deliberately lying about the existence of a warrant would violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and remanded. View "United States v. Rush" on Justia Law

The County petitions for review of an FCC order, which issued rules implementing Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. 1455(a), also known as the Spectrum Act. The County contends that the procedures established in the Order conscript the states in violation of the Tenth Amendment, and that the Order unreasonably defines several terms of the Spectrum Act. The court concluded that the FCC’s “deemed granted” procedure comports with the Tenth Amendment where the Order does not require the states to take any action whatsoever. The court also concluded that the FCC has reasonably interpreted the ambiguous terms of Section 6409(a): "substantially change" and "base station." Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Montgomery County v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm as a felon and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the firearm. In this case, the officers activated their vehicle’s emergency lights, trained a spotlight on defendant, and drew their weapons. Considering the totality of the circumstances, no reasonable person in defendant's position would have felt free to terminate the encounter. Thus, the district court committed no error in finding that the officers demonstrated a show of authority sufficient to implicate the Fourth Amendment. The court held that, under controlling Supreme Court precedent, when an individual attempts to evade a seizure and reveals evidence or contraband prior to submission to police authority, the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not apply. The court concluded that, under the totality of the facts as found by the district court in this case, walking away from police with a loaded gun in hand, in contravention of police orders, constitutes submission to police authority. Since defendant did not accede to police authority until confronted by an armed officer in front of the vehicle, the gun he discarded prior to that time was not the fruit of the seizure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stover" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Field Medical Case Manager, filed suit against her employer, Genex, claiming that Genex was required to pay her overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201, and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL), Md. Code Lab. & Empl. 3–401 to 3-431, for the overtime hours she worked. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to Genex. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to come forward with any persuasive evidence that Genex violated the FLSA by classifying her primary duty as professional and, therefore, plaintiff is exempt from the mandatory overtime provisions of the FLSA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Williams v. GENEX Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for Social Security disability benefits, contending that the ALJ failed to resolve a conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The court held that an ALJ has not fully developed the record if it contains an unresolved conflict between the expert’s testimony and the Dictionary; nor has the ALJ fulfilled this duty if he ignores an apparent conflict because the expert testified that no conflict existed. In this case, the ALJ did not fulfill his duty to make an independent identification of apparent conflicts. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pearson v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), contending that Guidelines Amendment 780, which revised the policy statement governing section 3582(c)(2) sentence reductions, renders him eligible for relief. The court agreed with the United States Attorney and defendant that the district court erred by failing to recognize that Amendment 780 altered the course the court followed in United States v. Hood. The district court failed to recognized that Amendment 780’s revision to Guidelines section 1B1.10 has modified the process for determining section 3582(c)(2) eligibility. Consequently, the court adhered to its pre-Hood decisions and recognized the Commission's authority to dictate the proper application of the Guidelines. The court's conclusion is consistent with the Sentencing Reform Act's focus on the elimination of unwarranted sentencing disparity and furthers the express Congressional policy of rewarding cooperation. In this case, defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2) because his revised Guidelines range is lower than his original range. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law