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

The district court concluded that the state habeas court had unreasonably applied the principles of Brady v. Maryland. The district court granted petitioner's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, finding that the prosecuting attorney had admitted to petitioner's defense counsel that the victim of petitioner's attempted robbery crime told the prosecuting attorney before trial that he, the victim, had not been put in fear by petitioner on the date of the crime, an element essential to conviction under West Virginia law, and that the prosecuting attorney had failed to so inform petitioner. The court agreed with the State's appeal, contending that the district court impermissibly found new facts and erred in failing to give the appropriate deference to the state habeas court’s factual findings and conclusions of law made with respect to its adjudication of petitioners’ Brady claim. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "Watkins v. Rubenstein" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, NS, alleging that NS suspended him on the basis of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court granted summary judgment to NS and then plaintiff filed a second suit, claiming that NS in fact suspended him for reporting rail safety offenses, in violation of the whistleblower protection provision of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20109. The district court again granted summary judgment to NS. The court concluded, however, that the Election of Remedies provision in the FRSA does not bar plaintiff's second suit. The court explained that a suspension on the basis of race is not “the same allegedly unlawful act” as a suspension in retaliation for FRSA whistleblowing. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Lee v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co." on Justia Law

SawStop filed suit against two dozen saw manufacturers and affiliated entities under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, contending that several major table-saw manufacturers conspired to boycott SawStop’s safety technology and corrupt a private safety-standard-setting process, all with the aim of keeping that technology off the market. The district court dismissed SawStop's amended complaint. The court concluded that SawStop's complaint does not plausibly allege any conspiracy to manipulate safety standards; the complaint also fails to allege any facts at all against several corporate parents and affiliates; and therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal as to these claims. However, the court concluded that SawStop has alleged enough to suggest a plausible agreement to engage in a group boycott where the complaint offers enough to survive defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's dismissal as to this claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker" on Justia Law

Intertape petitioned for review of the Board's order concluding that Intertape committed three unfair labor practices prior to and during the course of a union campaign, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 58(a)(1), and directing that a second election be held based upon two of the three violations. The Board cross-petitioned for enforcement. The court enforced the portion of the Board’s order concluding that Intertape engaged in unlawful interrogation of an employee in February of 2012, as well as the portion of the Board’s order concluding that Intertape unlawfully confiscated union flyers in March of 2012. The court denied enforcement, however, of the Board’s order concluding that Intertape engaged in unlawful surveillance of union activity in April of 2012, and remanded to the Board so that it can modify its order. Because the court's decision eliminates one of the bases upon which the Board set aside the election, the Board will need to reconsider its decision to direct a second election. Accordingly, the court granted the petition in part and denied it in part. View "Intertape Polymer Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana (and aiding and abetting the same), and carrying a firearm during and in relation to those drug trafficking crimes. The court held that the magistrate judge erred in concluding that defendant forfeited his right to counsel. Further, nothing in the record supports the government’s alternate contention that defendant either expressly or impliedly waived that right. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial because the error is not harmless. View "United States v. Ductan" on Justia Law

Defendant, an ordained Lutheran minister, moved to Haiti in 2004 to oversee a large ministry outside of Port Au Prince with his wife. Defendant conditionally plead guilty to two counts of engaging in an illicit sexual act with a minor after traveling in foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(c) and (e), and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. At issue was whether Congress may prohibit individuals from engaging in non-commercial “illicit sexual conduct” after they “travel in foreign commerce.” The court held that the Foreign Commerce Clause provides constitutional sanction. The court also concluded that the sentenced imposed by the district court was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bollinger" on Justia Law

The FDIC-R filed a civil action against several officers and directors of a North Carolina bank, Cooperative Bank, alleging that the officers and directors were negligent, grossly negligent, and breached their fiduciary duties, resulting in the failure of the Bank. On appeal, the FDIC-R argued that the district court erred in finding that North Carolina’s business judgment rule shields the officers and directors from allegations of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and that there was insufficient evidence to support claims of gross negligence. The court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the FDIC-R’s claims of ordinary negligence and breach of fiduciary duty as to the Officer Defendants because the court found that there is sufficient evidence to rebut the initial evidentiary presumption of the North Carolina business judgment rule; reversed and remanded the district court’s order denying as moot the FDIC-R’s cross-motion for summary judgment, as well as its order denying as moot the FDIC-R’s motion to exclude the declaration of Robert T. Gammill and the attached exhibits; and affirmed the district court’s judgment with respect to the remaining claims. View "FDIC v. Rippy" on Justia Law

Defendants Fuertes and Ventura appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit, and commission of, a number of sex trafficking and related offenses. The court concluded that Ventura's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) for possession and use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence was erroneous because, the court held, sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a), is not categorically a crime of violence. Therefore, the court vacated the conviction on Count Seven and remanded for entry of judgment of acquittal on that count. Otherwise, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Fuertes" on Justia Law

Defendants, Somali pirates, were convicted of multiple offenses, including piracy as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 1651. The district court declined to impose statutorily mandated life sentences on defendants, reasoning that such sentences would contravene the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The government appealed the district court's decision not to impose life sentences and defendants cross-appealed, challenging the district court's failure to dismiss the section 1651 charge, the jury instructions with respect to the piracy offense, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting certain of their convictions. The court concluded that it was satisfied that “the relationship between the gravity of [the defendants’] offenses and the severity of [their proposed] punishment fails to create the threshold inference of gross disproportionality that is required” to satisfy prong one of the Eighth Amendment analysis. Therefore, without analyzing prong two, the court concluded that the district court erred in invalidating section 1651's mandatory life sentence to defendants. The court rejected all of defendants' claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and reversed the sentences, remanding for resentencing. View "United States v. Said" on Justia Law

Relator filed suit under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3730(h), against several defendants for violation of the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. 3141-3144, 3146, 3147. In this case, although the FCA complaint was properly filed under seal, relator's attorney revealed to relator's employer the existence of the complaint well before the end of the sixty day waiting period. The district court found a violation of the seal requirement and dismissed the action with prejudice. However, the court concluded that the dismissal was inappropriate under the FCA because the seal violation did not incurably frustrate the seal’s statutory purpose. The court further concluded that neither of the district court’s alternative reasons for dismissing relator’s claims - the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 9(b) - warrant dismissal with prejudice. Finally, the court concluded that the district court erred when it dismissed relator’s retaliation claim. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Smith v. Clark/Smoot/Russell" on Justia Law