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

In this case, Alyssa Reid, a former faculty member at James Madison University (JMU) in Virginia, was accused of violating JMU’s Title IX policy against non-consensual relationships based on her past relationship with a graduate student. JMU and its officials investigated the accusation and held a hearing, leading to a decision that Reid violated the policy. Reid appealed the decision to JMU’s provost, who denied her appeal. Subsequently, Reid sued JMU and several officials, raising three due process claims under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Virginia Constitution, as well as a sex discrimination claim under Title IX.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia held that Reid’s claims accrued when the dean made his decision, and thus they were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Reid appealed this decision, arguing that her claims accrued not when the dean issued his decision, but when the provost denied her appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with Reid. The court found that Reid did not have a complete and present cause of action until JMU reached a final decision in her Title IX proceedings. The court determined that JMU did not make clear that the dean’s decision was its official position. Rather, JMU’s official position was made clear to Reid when the provost denied her appeal with a “final,” non-appealable decision. Therefore, Reid’s due process and Title IX claims were not barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations, and the court reversed the district court's dismissal of Reid’s claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Reid v. James Madison University" on Justia Law

The case involves Richard Lewis, a man convicted in 2004 for conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs and unlawful firearm possession. Lewis began serving two concurrent 5-year terms of supervised release in 2010 after serving roughly seven years in prison. During the supervised release, Lewis was arrested and convicted under state law for three counts of manufacturing or distributing illegal drugs and sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment. Based on these violations, the district court revoked Lewis’s supervised release and sentenced him to 20 months’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively to his state sentence. Lewis appealed, arguing that the district court improperly considered the need for punishment and the seriousness of the violation, which he contended are factors prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed with Lewis's arguments. It held that the district court did not base Lewis's revocation sentence predominantly on the retributive factor, and the sentence was not plainly unreasonable. It also rejected Lewis's argument that Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines must be struck down as inconsistent with § 3583(e). The Court explained that Lewis's argument relied on the incorrect premise that "the offense" in § 3553(a) should be read as including the defendant’s supervised release violation. The Court affirmed the district court's revocation sentence. View "US v. Lewis" on Justia Law

The case involves the appellant, Reggie Pettus, who pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony. The controversy revolves around the sentencing of Pettus by the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Pettus challenged his sentence on four grounds. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found one of his challenges to be meritorious, leading to the vacating of the district court’s judgment and remanding the case for resentencing.The main issue of discussion in the appeal was the district court's application of an obstruction of justice enhancement to Pettus's sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court did not provide a sufficient explanation of its rationale for applying the enhancement, leaving the appellate court unable to conduct meaningful review. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for resentencing with a clear rationale for any applied enhancements. The court also addressed other issues that may arise during resentencing, including the application of a robbery cross-reference and objections to the proposed conditions of supervised release. View "US v. Pettus" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit involving four defendants—Dricko Dashon Huskey, Renaire Roshique Lewis, Jr., Alandus Montrell Smith, and Jonathan Wray—all were members of the United Blood Nations (UBN) gang and were charged with conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act and related crimes. They were all found guilty following a trial. The defendants appealed their convictions and sentences, alleging various procedural and substantive errors. The Court of Appeals, after considering each of the defendants' arguments, affirmed the district court's judgments. The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions, and that the defendants' challenges to certain evidentiary rulings, closing arguments, jury instructions, and sentencing decisions lacked merit. View "US v. Huskey" on Justia Law

Angel Centeno-Morales, a federal prisoner with a long history of criminal offenses involving drugs and violence, filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) after his wife, who was the primary caregiver for their minor son, died of COVID-19. Centeno-Morales argued that his wife’s death constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for release and that a reassessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors also favored his release given his changed circumstances and his post-sentencing rehabilitative conduct. The district court agreed that the death of Centeno-Morales’ wife constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief, but found that the § 3553(a) factors strongly weighed in favor of his continued incarceration. Centeno-Morales appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Centeno-Morales' motion for compassionate release. The court found that the district court had properly evaluated the relevant § 3553(a) factors and provided sufficient reasoning for its decision. The court emphasized that Centeno-Morales had failed to meet his burden of persuasion to show that the § 3553(a) factors justified a modified sentence. The court further noted that the same judge who sentenced Centeno-Morales also ruled on his motion for compassionate release, which suggested the judge had a comprehensive understanding of Centeno-Morales' circumstances. View "US v. Centeno-Morales" on Justia Law

The defendant, Rodriquies Evans, was convicted of four criminal offenses related to his involvement in a multistate conspiracy to transport and distribute methamphetamine and other controlled substances. The district court sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 80 years in prison. The Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals found that the district court had erred in calculating Evans’s Sentencing Guidelines range and vacated his sentence, remanding the case for resentencing. The court determined that the district court had incorrectly attributed nearly three kilograms of crystal methamphetamine seized from a co-conspirator to Evans. The court held that for sentencing purposes under the Sentencing Guidelines, only acts that fall within the scope of the criminal activity the defendant agreed to jointly undertake can be considered relevant conduct. The district court had attributed the drugs based on the broader standard of substantive liability under Pinkerton, which allows a defendant to be held liable for the acts of co-conspirators if they are within the scope of the overall conspiracy and reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. The court also found that the district court had erred in applying a threat enhancement in calculating Evans's Sentencing Guidelines range, as the possession of a firearm enhancement could not by itself be the basis for a threat enhancement. View "US v. Evans" on Justia Law

In this case, Nagla Abdelhalim, an Egyptian immigrant and a Muslim woman, filed suit against her neighbors Aaron and Dinara Lewis and Andrew and Roxana McDevitt, alleging that they violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a year-long campaign of harassment against her in an attempt to drive her out of the neighborhood because of her race, national origin, and religion. The dispute began when Abdelhalim started a short-term rental business, renting out her basement on platforms such as Airbnb, which violated a local ordinance at the time and was disapproved by her neighbors. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that Abdelhalim had not produced evidence of intentional discrimination based on a protected ground.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered only whether the district court erred in granting the defendants' motions for attorneys’ fees. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the district court had applied the wrong legal standard and thus abused its discretion in granting attorneys’ fees to the defendants. The court noted that while a plaintiff’s failure to prevail is a factor to consider, it alone cannot be the basis for concluding that a claim was without foundation. The court found that Abdelhalim had provided sufficient evidence to support her belief that the defendants intended to discriminate against her based on her race, religion, or national origin. Thus, her claims were not without foundation, and the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants was vacated. View "Abdelhalim v. Lewis" on Justia Law

In this case, plaintiffs Kewon English and Earl Powell were arrested for sexual assault and burglary and detained for over a year before their cases were nolle prossed and they were released. They sued Senior Investigator Joseph Clarke of the Richland County Sheriff’s Department, alleging that he had coerced them into signing false confessions. They also sued Sheriff Leon Lott and the Richland County Sheriff's Department for damages under § 1983, claiming their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment on English’s claims and dismissed Clarke’s cross-appeal. The court determined that there was probable cause to arrest English based on the victim’s identifications. Regarding English's malicious prosecution claim, the court held that even assuming probable cause was negated, Clarke cannot be held responsible for English’s continued detention. The court found no evidence that the Richland County Sheriff's Department had any unconstitutional policy or custom, and that Clarke could not be held liable for the continued detention of English. Furthermore, the court dismissed Clarke's cross-appeal, ruling that the appeal turned on a question of fact and was therefore not suitable for interlocutory treatment. View "English v. Clarke" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Jahsir Claybrooks, pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen firearm. The probation office determined that at the time of the offense, Claybrooks was an unlawful user of controlled substances and under indictment for a felony, making him a "prohibited person" not allowed to possess a firearm. As a result, his sentence was calculated based on this status. Claybrooks challenged this designation, arguing that he was not an unlawful drug user and that the statute was unconstitutionally vague. He also asserted that the district court erred in determining he was under indictment at the time of his offense and in imposing a sentence above the recommended guidelines. Finally, Claybrooks argued that the district court should have conducted an analysis of the firearms statutes at issue in accordance with a recent Supreme Court case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the district court did not commit reversible error. The court found that the district court correctly determined that Claybrooks was an unlawful user of controlled substances at the time of the offense, the relevant statute was not unconstitutionally vague, and the district court did not err in imposing an above-guidelines sentence. The court also dismissed Claybrooks' argument regarding the need for an analysis of the firearms statutes, as he raised this issue for the first time on appeal. View "US v. Claybrooks" on Justia Law

This case involves Jeremy Schulman, a former shareholder at the Maryland law firm Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker. Schulman sued insurance companies AXIS Surplus Insurance Company, Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company, and Prosight Syndicate 1110 at Lloyd’s, for breach of contract, detrimental reliance, and lack of good faith, claiming that they wrongfully denied his claim for coverage under his law firm's professional liability insurance policy. The dispute hinges on whether Schulman's indictment in a criminal case qualifies as a "claim" under his professional liability insurance policy, and whether a letter from the insurance companies promising to cover certain costs relating to a subpoena also covered costs related to the later indictment. Schulman also alleges that the insurers acted in bad faith.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants. The court held that Schulman's indictment in the criminal case did not constitute a "claim" under his professional liability insurance policy, and that the insurers' letter did not promise to cover costs related to the indictment. The court also held that Schulman's claim of bad faith could not succeed because he was not entitled to coverage under the policy and the insurers did not breach any tort duty by denying coverage. View "Schulman v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., Inc." on Justia Law