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

The South Carolina Coastal Conservation League filed suit against various parties under federal law to stop what it fears will be significant degradation to 485 acres of freshwater wetlands and its conversion to saltwater wetlands. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action as moot where the record on appeal does not support the proposition that granting the League the relief it seeks on any of its claims will likely prevent the water within the Embanked Tract from becoming more saline. Because the district court’s mootness ruling is sound and the League has offered no additional basis for standing, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying, on the ground of futility, the League’s motion seeking leave to amend its First Amended Complaint. View "South Carolina Coastal v. U.S. Army Corps" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of the BIA's decision dismissing her appeal from an IJ's order of removal. At issue is the IJ's denial of petitioner's motion to suppress certain evidence and to terminate the removal proceeding. The court held that the exclusionary rule applies to egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment. The court joined the Second, Third, and Eighth Circuits and applied a totality of the circumstances test to determine the egregiousness standard. The court rejected petitioner's claim that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the search warrant at issue was invalid because it identified the premises as single-family home as oppose to a multi-unit dwelling. The court rejected petitioner's alternative arguments, concluding that petitioner's claims do not make out a constitutional violation, let alone an egregious one. The court held, however, that the nighttime execution of a daytime warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, absent consent or exigent circumstances. In this case, the 5:00 a.m. search of the premises violated the Fourth Amendment. The court held that, although the nighttime execution of the daytime warrant violated petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights, such violation was not egregious under the totality of the circumstances. The court rejected petitioner's remaining claims and denied the petition for review. View "Yanez-Marquez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Board, alleging that it violated his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. Plaintiff was involved in an incident with a student at the high school where he was employed as an assistant principal. Plaintiff subsequently filed for medical leaves due to his post-traumatic stress disorder which was related to the CPS investigation that occurred after the incident. Plaintiff was also transferred to a different school. The court concluded that the evidence demonstrated that the Board did not interfere with plaintiff's FMLA rights and did not retaliate against plaintiff for exercising such rights. The court also rejected plaintiff's ADA claim, concluding that evidence demonstrated that the Board did not discriminate nor retaliate against him based on his disability. Further, the Board did not fail to accommodate plaintiff's condition. View "Adams v. Anne Arundel Cnty. Pub. Sch." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who is blind, filed suit against the County, alleging violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, or Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. Plaintiff was employed by the County when the County opened a new call center using software that was inaccessible to blind employees. The County did not transfer plaintiff to the new call center along with her sighted coworkers and the County also did not hire her for a vacant position there. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the County on the Section 504 claim, finding that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether plaintiff could perform the essential job functions of a call center employee; whether the County reasonably accommodated her; and if the County did not, whether its failure to do so may be excused because of undue hardship. However, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the County on the Title II claim where public employees cannot use Title II to bring employment discrimination claims against their employers. View "Reyazuddin v. Montgomery Cnty, MD" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, police officers for the Town of Mocksville, filed suit alleging that the Town and others violated plaintiffs' First Amendment rights when plaintiffs were terminated for speaking out about corruption and misconduct at the Mocksville Police Department. The court concluded that the evidence demonstrated that plaintiffs acted as private citizens on a matter of undisputed public concern by privately reaching out to the Governor's Office about suspected corruption and misconduct. Such actions cannot be considered as part of plaintiffs' daily professional activities. Further, it was clearly established law at the time that speech about serious misconduct in a law enforcement agency is protected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to Defendants Cook and Bralley. View "Hunter v. Mocksville, NC" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of multiple crimes and sentenced to death for carjacking resulting in death and for kidnapping resulting in death. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and the subsequent denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment under F.R.C.P. 59(e). Defendant raised four claims relating to an inculpatory statement he made to a law enforcement officer, two claims related to his competency to stand trial, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court rejected defendant's assignments of error and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Basham" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed the district court's application of two sentencing enhancements. The court found that defendant's prior conviction for second-degree rape under a North Carolina statute is not categorically a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a)(2)'s residual clause. Because the district court erred in characterizing defendant’s prior conviction as a crime of violence and thereby enhancing his base offense level for illegally possessing a firearm, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court also concluded that U.S.S.G. 3C1.2 is intended to capture “behavior that could be viewed as an obstruction of justice,” and thus requires that a defendant be aware that he or she is fleeing from a law enforcement officer. The court vacated this enhancement and remanded for the district court to clarify whether defendant knew he was being pursued by law enforcement. View "United States v. Shell" on Justia Law

Capital City filed suit against Underwriters, seeking a declaration that Underwriters were obligated to defend and indemnify it against a negligence suit. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Underwriters. The court concluded, however, that the plain language of the Endorsement to the policy creates a duty to defend Capital City where Capital City is being held liable for the acts or omissions of a subcontractor; the allegations in the underlying complaint create a potentiality of coverage; and therefore, the court vacated the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Underwriters and remanded for further proceedings. View "Capital City Real Estate v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of the Philippines, challenged the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of an IJ's order of removal and denial of his motion for reconsideration. The BIA determined that petitioner's 1990 Maryland conviction for "causing abuse to a child," qualified as an aggravated felony" under the generic crime of "sexual abuse of a minor," and he was therefore removeable. Because the least culpable conduct under the former Maryland statute prohibiting sexual abuse of a child does not necessarily qualify as the generic federal offense of “sexual abuse of a minor,” as interpreted by the BIA, the court granted the petition for review and vacated the order of removal. View "Amos v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of drug offenses, appealed the district court's revocation of two concurrent terms of supervised release and sentence of consecutive terms of imprisonment, followed by new concurrent terms of supervised release. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant possessed a firearm, and so revocation of his supervised release was not an abuse of discretion. Further, the district court also imposed a reasonable revocation sentence where the factors the district court relied on closely track the language of both Chapter 7 and section 3553(a) of the Guidelines. The district court sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment within that range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Padgett" on Justia Law