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

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

Davis Construction filed suit against the Authority seeking a refund of the impact fees it had paid to the Water and Sewer District. At issue was whether the County acted ultra vires in collecting fees on behalf of the District from Davis Construction for water and sewer services that the District did not provide and had no concrete plans or immediate ability to provide. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the County acted ultra vires in collecting the fees on behalf of the District and ordered both the County and the successor to the District, the Authority, to refund the fees in the amount of $34,268.96, together with prejudgment interest. The court also affirmed the district court's award of attorneys fees and costs to Davis Construction. View "Tommy Davis Construction, Inc. v. Cape Fear Public Utility" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioner argued that his life would be threatened because of his membership in one of two particular social groups: (1) “Salvadorans who are former members of MS-13 and who left the gang, without its permission, for moral and religious reasons,” and (2) “Salvadorans who were recruited to be members of MS-13 as children and who left the gang as minors, without its permission, for moral and religious reasons.” The court concluded that the BIA erred by interpreting the nexus requirement too narrowly, and that petitioner successfully demonstrated that membership in his proposed social groups was at least one central reason for his persecution; the BIA failed to adequately address the record evidence in making its determination that petitioner’s proposed social groups were not cognizable; and, therefore, the court granted the petition, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for proper consideration of the cognizable social group issue. View "Oliva v. Lynch" on Justia Law

These appeals stemmed from ICI's breach of numerous contracts. Flame and Glory Wealth sought a writ of maritime attachment under Supplemental Rule B of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to attach the vessel M/V CAPE VIEWER when it docked in Norfolk, Virginia. Freight Bulk is the registered owner of the vessel, but Flame and Glory Wealth asserted that Freight Bulk was the alter ego of ICI, and that ICI had fraudulently conveyed its assets to Freight Bulk in order to evade its creditors. The district court awarded judgment to Flame and Glory Wealth, ordered the sale of the M/V CAPE VIEWER, and confirmed the distribution of the sale proceeds to Flame and Glory Wealth. Freight Bulk appealed. The court rejected Freight Bulk's arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction, Glory Wealth's judgment against ICI, discovery sanctions, and sufficiency of the evidence. Because the court found no merit in Freight Bulk's claims, the court affirmed the judgment. View "FLAME S.A. v. Freight Bulk Pte. Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Prime, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 95-25.1 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that she was unlawfully deprived of wages earned as commissions and overtime pay earned from work of more than 40 hours per week. The court affirmed the district court’s order denying Prime's motion to compel arbitration, concluding that Prime failed to produce evidence demonstrating that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any of her claims. The court dismissed Prime's appeal from the class action certification order, concluding that its petition for permission to appeal the district court’s order was untimely filed. View "Lorenzo v. Prime Communications, L.P." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's pretermission of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. The court found that petitioner's conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, committed against someone with whom he had a domestic relationship, renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and denied the petition for review. View "Hernandez-Zavala v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm and was sentenced as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on his prior South Carolina drug convictions. The court affirmed its holding in United States v. Williams, directing that courts evaluating whether a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate for a federal sentence enhancement look to the statutory penalty for the prior conviction. In Williams, Youthful Offender Act (YOA), S.C. Code Ann. 24-19-50, offenses can qualify as ACCA predicates because the maximum statutory penalty for the prior conviction is unaffected by the state court’s exercise of its discretion to impose a sentence of six years or less in custody. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sellers" on Justia Law

Kamal Zaki Qazah and his uncle Nasser Kamal Alquza appealed their convictions and sentences for conspiring to receive and transport stolen cigarettes in interstate commerce, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and money laundering. In addition, Qazah was convicted of receiving cigarettes purportedly stolen in interstate commerce. The court affirmed the convictions, rejecting Alquza's challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence recovered from a search of his house, as well as several other evidentiary rulings made at trial. However, the court vacated defendants’ sentences and remanded for resentencing, allowing the district court to expand its inquiry into the intended victim or victims of the relevant offenses and to recalculate defendants’ sentencing ranges based on its findings and conclusions about the amount of loss that they intended to result from their commission of the offense or offenses. View "United States v. Qazah" on Justia Law