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

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, contending that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop. During the traffic stop, a deputy sheriff issued defendant a written warning and defendant subsequently refused to consent to a vehicle search. A dog sniff was conducted and crack cocaine seized from the vehicle. The court concluded that the officers did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity during the traffic stop. Therefore, extending the otherwise-completed stop of the vehicle to conduct a dog sniff violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Williams, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, aiding and abetting the same, and conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. The court concluded that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin on July 13, 2011. In this case, the fact that defendant possessed a key to the Apartment, entered the apartment building containing the Apartment on July 13, 2011, stayed five minutes, and exited with a sandwich-sized plastic container in his hand, standing alone, is insufficient evidence to establish his constructive possession of the heroin found in the footstool in the front bedroom of the Apartment. Further, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict defendant of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin where the court does not know and cannot know whether the jury found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the lesser included offense. Accordingly, the court reversed both convictions. View "United States v. Blue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Senior Managing Attorney for CVLAS, filed suit alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and age. The district court granted CVLAS's motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court concluded that the order of dismissal was not a final and appealable order, and therefore, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded the case to the district court with instructions. The court held that the grounds for dismissal in this case did not clearly preclude amendment. View "Goode v. Central Virginia Legal Aid Society" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision ordering him removed and denying his motion for reconsideration. The court held that the IJ and the BIA did not err in determining that petitioner was convicted of a "particularly serious crime" rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(8), and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court also held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Because petitioner was convicted of a state crime involving a controlled substance, the court lacks jurisdiction to review questions of fact underlying the present order denying him deferral of removal. Therefore, the court does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of his claims for deferral or removal under the CAT. The court dismissed in part, and denied in part, the petitions for review. View "Hernandez-Nolasco v. Lynch" on Justia Law

This dispute centers around Lexis’s sale of personal data reports to debt collectors. Plaintiffs alleged that Lexis failed to provide the protections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681, et seq., in connection with its reports. The district court subsequently certified a settlement class. In this appeal, a group of class members claim the right to opt out of the settlement class and pursue statutory damages individually seeking to undo that settlement. At issue is the the (b)(2) Class, which includes all individuals in the United States about whom the Accurint database contained information from November 2006 to April 2013 – roughly 200 million people. The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no error in the release of the statutory damages claims as part of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) settlement, and no abuse of discretion in the district court’s approval of the settlement agreement. View "Berry v. LexisNexis Risk and Info." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Severn and its insurer filed suit against IFC, alleging breach of contract and negligence because IFC improperly applied a dangerous pesticide while fumigating Severn’s peanut dome, resulting in fire, an explosion, loss of approximately 20,000,000 pounds of peanuts, loss of business, and various cleanup costs. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to IFC because the contract’s consequential damages exclusion bars Severn’s breach of contract claim, and because North Carolina does not allow Severn to veil that claim in tort law. View "Severn Peanut Co. v. Industrial Fumigant Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas corpus petition, seeking release from the obligation to make restitution payments through the BOP's Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). The district court found that petitioner's claim was not cognizable under section 2241. The court held, however, that an inmate’s challenge to the BOP’s administration of the IFRP is a challenge to the “execution” of a sentence that is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fontanez v. O'Brien" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for receipt of child pornography, arguing that his prosecution and conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2) should have been barred by the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause because of his earlier plea to possession of child pornography in violation of section 2252(a)(4). The court concluded that the prosecution and conviction of defendant for receipt of child pornography in violation of section 2252(a)(2) was premised on facts distinct from those covered by defendant’s guilty plea to possession of child pornography in violation of section 2252(a)(4). Therefore, defendant was subject to multiple punishments for multiple offenses, not multiple punishments for the same offense. Because there is no double jeopardy violation, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Schnittker" on Justia Law

NOM appealed the district court’s denial of its motion under 26 U.S.C. 7431(c)(3) to collect attorneys’ fees from the IRS. NOM had filed suit against the IRS seeking damages for unlawful inspection and disclosure of confidential tax information by IRS agents. NOM sought statutory damages, actual damages, punitive damages, and costs and attorneys’ fees. the district court concluded that NOM was not a “prevailing party” under section 7430(c)(4)(A) because (1) it did not “substantially prevail[] [in litigation against the IRS] with respect to the amount in controversy, or . . . the most significant . . . issues presented,” and, alternatively, (2) the government’s position in the litigation was “substantially justified” under 7430(c)(4)(B). The court could not say that the government acted unreasonably prior to the summary judgment stage of the litigation by waiting to see what NOM’s evidence was and then challenging its sufficiency. In this case, the government adopted a reasonable strategy in conceding statutory damages, but challenging the existence and amount of both actual and punitive damages. The court agreed with the district court that the government’s litigation position was “substantially justified,” which, by itself, is sufficient to find that NOM was not a “prevailing party” under the statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "National Org. for Marriage v. IRS" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Senegal, challenged the denial of a continuance or administrative closure of his removal proceedings so he could receive a mental health evaluation. Petitioner was deemed removeable after he pled guilty to three counts of second-degree assault following a psychotic episode at his workplace. The court denied the petition for review, concluding that the IJ did not procedurally or substantively err in assessing petitioner's mental competency. In this case, petitioner had received one continuance after another and there was no defect in the proceedings. View "Diop v. Lynch" on Justia Law