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

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging Maryland's Firearm Safety Act (FSA), Md. Code, Crim. Law 4-303(a), which, among other things, bans law-abiding citizens, with the exception of retired law enforcement officers, from possessing the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens for defending their families and homes and other lawful purposes. The court concluded that the FSA implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment and the court, pursuant to District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and its own precedent, concluded the burden is substantial and strict scrutiny is the applicable standard of review for plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's denial of these claims and remanded for the district court to apply strict scrutiny. The court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' equal protection challenge to the statutory exception allowing retired law enforcement officers to possess prohibited semi-automatic rifles. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the term “copies” as used by the FSA is not unconstitutionally vague. View "Kolbe v. Hogan, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Delbert alleging that Delbert violated debt collection practices. The district court granted Delbert's motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 4. The court concluded, however, that the arbitration agreement in this case is unenforceable where it purportedly fashions a system of alternative dispute resolution while simultaneously rendering that system all but impotent through a categorical rejection of the requirements of state and federal law. The court went on to conclude that the FAA does not protect the sort of arbitration agreement that unambiguously forbids an arbitrator from even applying the applicable law. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hayes v. Delbert Services Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, a colonel in the Somali National Army, under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), 28 U.S.C.1350, alleging several violations of international law after a group of soldiers kidnapped him from his home in northern Somalia. The district court dismissed the ATS claims and allowed the TVPA claims to proceed, holding that defendant was not entitled to immunity as a foreign official. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that plaintiff has failed to allege a claim which touches and concerns the United States to support ATS jurisdiction, and therefore the district court did not err in dismissing the ATS counts. The court also agreed with the district court that defendant lacked foreign official immunity for jus cogens violations under Yousuf v. Samantar. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Warfaa v. Ali" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against two former members of the North Carolina Army National Guard, Adjutant General William E. Ingram, and Lieutenant Colonel Peter von Jess, alleging that defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff claimed that defendants, motivated by revenge, directed other service members to monitor plaintiff’s email messages, which he sent while serving on active duty in Kuwait, and to forward incriminating messages to von Jess. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants based on the justiciability doctrine in Mindes v. Seaman. Mindes provided a four-factor test for reviewability of claims based on internal military affairs. The court acknowledged that defendant now renounces any claim for equitable relief and affirmed the district court's judgment on the basis of the military abstention doctrine set forth in Feres v. United States. In this case, plaintiff's alleged injuries arose out of activity incident to his service where he was on active duty, deployed in a war zone, and used a computer system set up by the DOD for military personnel deployed at Camp Doha. View "Aikens v. Ingram, Jr." on Justia Law

Relators filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., against Purdue, alleging that the company was involved in a fraudulent scheme regarding the equianalgesic ratio of OxyContin. The court declined realtors' invitation to read United States ex rel. Siller v. Becton Dickinson & Co., so as to render it internally inconsistent and at odds with the public disclosure bar’s purpose. Indeed, by foreshadowing the court’s conclusion in this case, Siller itself eschews the interpretation relators urge. Here, relators’ claims are based on facts their counsel learned in the course of making the prior public disclosure of Purdue’s allegedly fraudulent scheme. The court held, consistent with its reasoning in Siller and the public disclosure bar’s purpose, that the district court correctly dismissed the relators’ suit. View "United States ex rel. May v. Purdue Pharma L.P." on Justia Law

Defendants David James Williams, III and Kristin Deantanetta Williams appealed from their conviction and sentence to one count of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Both defendants stipulated to a sentence of 120 months in prison pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court found no error in the convictions and affirmed the judgment. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review Kristin's sentence because a sentence imposed pursuant to the terms of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement may only be reviewed if it is unlawful or expressly based on the United States Sentencing Guidelines. In this case, nowhere in the agreement is there a Guidelines-based calculation of an imprisonment term. Consequently, the sentence was not “imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines,” and no provision under 18 U.S.C. 3742 permits the court to review the reasonableness of her sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and dismissed in part. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Stubbs is owed approximately $200,000 in legal fees from representing debtor in bankruptcy proceedings. Debtor is subject to nearly $1 million in secured tax claims, and the estate has insufficient funds to pay both Stubbs’ fees and the tax claim. At issue is which of these claims takes priority in a Chapter 7 liquidation under the Bankruptcy Code. Under the version of section 724(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 724(b)(2), in effect when the bankruptcy court rendered its decision, the court concluded that it is clear that debtor is not entitled to subordinate the IRS’s secured tax claim in favor of its unsecured claim to Chapter 11 administrative expenses. The court need not reach the issue of whether the same result would have been obtained under the pre-Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-327, 124 Stat. 3557, version of section 724(b)(2). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Angell v. Stubbs & Perdue, P.A." on Justia Law

Knox Creek challenged the Commission's determination that four uncontested violations of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 814(d)(1), by Knox Creek were “significant and substantial.” In regard to the permissibility violations, the court concluded that the Commission should have applied the legal standard advocated by the Secretary, but that the outcome is unaffected when the proper standard is applied. In regard to the accumulations violation, the court concluded that the Commission applied the correct legal standard, one also endorsed by the Secretary. Further, the Commission did not improperly reweigh evidence in this case. On the contrary, the Commission’s decision with respect to both the permissibility and accumulations violations did not question even one of the ALJ’s factual findings. Accordingly, the court denied Knox Creek's petition for review. View "Knox Creek Coal Corp. v. Secretary of Labor" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit arguing that Virginia's certificate of need (CON) law, a program that governs the establishment and expansion of certain medical facilities inside the state, unconstitutionally violates the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause. The district court granted summary judgment to the Commonwealth. The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that Virginia’s CON requirement violates the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce in both purpose and effect, and rejected plaintiffs' argument that even if the program does not unconstitutionally discriminate, it nevertheless violates the dormant Commerce Clause because it places an undue burden on interstate commerce. Because the certificate requirement neither discriminated against nor placed an undue burden on interstate commerce, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Colon Health Ctrs. v. Hazel" on Justia Law

Defendants Moore and Latham appealed convictions for their participation in a murder-for-hire plot targeting Latham's estranged wife. The court held that the jury instructions did not constructively amend the indictment in this case where the jury could not reasonably have concluded that it was free to convict defendants under the uncharged, undefined facilities prong of the murder-for-hire statute. In regard to defendants' evidentiary challenges, the court concluded that there was no error in admitting a government witness's out-of-court statements, and there was no error in admitting certain character evidence where defendants elicited some of the testimony at issue and the district court required the government to correct any misperceptions engendered by the evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law