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

Despite having only a few hundred dollars in her checking account at SunTrust Bank, Appellant cut herself a check for nearly $10,000, resulting in a sizable overdraft. SunTrust hired a Maryland law firm, Mitchell Rubenstein & Associates (MR&A) to bring a debt collection suit. MR&A filed suit on SunTrust’s behalf in a general district court in Virginia. The general district court entered judgment in favor of MR&A. Appellant subsequently filed a complaint against SunTrust and MR&A (collectively, Appellees), alleging that Appellees violated Maryland consumer protection laws and that MR&A violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The federal district court dismissed Appellant’s suit for failure to state a claim. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the counts alleged in Appellant’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief. View "Elyazidi v. SunTrust Bank" on Justia Law

In 1998, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded Appellant’s case in light of its decision in Roper v. Simmons, which stated that the death penalty may not be imposed on juvenile offenders under the age of eighteen. The Virginia Supreme Court subsequently commuted Appellant’s sentence to life without the possibility of parole. In 2012, the Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, which held that a mandatory life without the possibility of parole sentence imposed on a homicide offender who was a juvenile at the time of the offense violates the Eighth Amendment. One year later, Appellant sought collateral review of his sentence by filing a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because Miller applies retroactively on collateral review. The district court dismissed Appellant’s petition as untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Miller rule is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. View "Johnson v. Ponton" on Justia Law

In 2012, the Montgomery County Council in Maryland approved plans to tear down the White Flint Shopping Center (the “Mall”) and redevelop the site into a mixed-use, town-center-style development. Lord & Taylor, LLC, which operated a retail store connected with the Mall, filed this action seeking a declaration that the Mall’s owner, White Flint, L.P., was precluded from going forward with the development and seeking a permanent injunction to enjoin White Flint from carrying out the redevelopment. The district court denied Lord & Taylor’s request for injunctive relief, determining that an injunction would be unworkable given the “advanced stage[ ]” of the project. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Maryland law clearly authorized the district court to go beyond the state-law presumption in favor of injunctive relief to consider feasibility and related equitable concerns; and (2) the district court did not err in finding that injunctive relief would be infeasible. View "Lord & Taylor, LLC v. White Flint, L.P." on Justia Law

Covol Fuels No. 4, LLC (Covol) and Pinnacle Mining Co., LLC (Pinnacle) were parties to a business agreement - a fully integrated contract - wherein Covol conducted coal fines recovery operations at Pinnacle’s mine in Wyoming County, West Virginia. Covol was authorized to unilaterally terminate the contract if its operations became economically unfeasible. After it became economically unfeasible for Covol to continue in the business, Covol initiated this action, alleging four claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Pinnacle as to all claims. Covol appealed, contending that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on its breach of contract claim and on its tort claims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to Covol’s breach of contract claim that a jury must decide; and (2) Covol’s tort claims were barred by the “gist of the action doctrine.” View "Covol Fuels No. 4, LLC v. Pinnacle Mining Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Five individuals (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) each filed a petition for individual bankruptcy under Chapter 13 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. LVNV Funding, LLC and its affiliated companies (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a proof of unsecured claim based on defaulted debts it had acquired against each plaintiff. Each Chapter 13 plan was approved. Defendants’ claims were allowed, and they received payments from the Chapter 13 trustees on these claims. Plaintiffs subsequently filed this putative class action lawsuit in the District of Maryland alleging that Defendants violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and various Maryland laws by filing proofs of claim without a Maryland debt collection license. The district court dismissed the action, concluding (1) the state common law claims were barred by res judicata, and (2) the federal and state statutory claims failed to state a claim. The Fourth Circuit affirmed but on res judicata grounds, holding (1) Plaintiffs’ claims were based on the same cause of action as Defendants’ claims in the confirmed bankruptcy plans and were thus barred by res judicata; and (2) Plaintiffs’ statutory claims were subject to the normal principles of res judicata and were thus precluded by the confirmation of the Chapter 13 plans. View "Covert v. LVNV Funding, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican national, pled guilty to illegal entry, a misdemeanor offense. After Petitioner had served his 181-day sentence and was released, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commenced removal proceedings against him. Petitioner conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that his removal would cause exceptional hardship to his three citizen children, especially his ten-year-old autistic son. The immigration judge (IJ) dismissed Petitioner’s application, concluding that Petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(7) precludes an alien from establishing good moral character when his offense resulted in 180 days or more of confinement. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding that the applicability of section 1101(f)(&) does not depend upon the type of offense, but rather, the length of incarceration. The Fourth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) this was not one of those “exceptionally rare” instances in which the literal application of a Congressional enactment produces truly absurd results; and (2) the Court lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim that he was not precluded from establishing good moral character. View "Tiscareno-Garcia v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2009, Appellant pleaded no contest in a state court to carnal knowledge and soliciting the production of child pornography. Appellant later filed an amended pro se habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The state court dismissed Appellant’s petition without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Appellant had not shown deficient performance. After the state Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for appeal, Appellant filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in the federal district court. The court dismissed the petition based on the state court’s reasoning. The Fourth Circuit remanded, holding (1) the district court owed no deference to the state court’s ruling and should have reviewed the state court’s decision de novo; and (2) the district court mistakenly concluded that it had no discretion to grant an evidentiary hearing. Remanded. View "Gordon v. Braxton" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute (PWID) more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. After two sentencing hearings, the district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment on the conspiracy charge and a concurrent term of 480 months’ imprisonment on the PWID charge. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred by failing to make the necessary factual findings to support its drug-quantity calculations. The Fourth Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the factual findings underlying the district court’s drug quantity calculations were inadequate. View "United States v. Flores-Alvarado" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, appealed the denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging a magistrate judge's certification of extraditability. The magistrate judge found that petitioner was subject to extradition under a treaty between the United States and Bosnia and Herzegovina based on war crimes he allegedly committed during the conflict in former Yugoslavia. The court applied the indefinite limitations period from the United States Torture Act, 18 U.S.C. 2340A, that was in place at the time of the extradition request and concluded that the request for petitioner's extradition is not time-barred under Article VII of the treaty. Further, the acts of torture allegedly perpetrated by petitioner against civilians preclude application of the political offense exception. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that petitioner's extradition is neither time-barred nor precluded by the political offense exception in the treaty. View "Nezirovic v. Holt" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit challenging Henrico County's ordinance prohibiting solicitation within county roadways. Plaintiff is homeless and supports himself by soliciting donations in the County. The district court granted summary judgment for the County, concluding that the ordinance is content-neutral and a narrowly tailored time, place, and manner restriction on speech. Plaintiff argued on appeal that the County bears the burden of proof and that the County's evidence was insufficient to establish that the ordinance is narrowly tailored or that it leaves open ample alternative channels of communication. McCullen v. Coakley held that a content-neutral regulation is narrowly tailored if it does not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests. McCullen clarified the law governing the evidentiary showing required of a governmental entity seeking to uphold a speech restriction under intermediate scrutiny. Because the parties did not have McCullen's guidance at the time they prepared their cross motions for summary judgment, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded for further factual development and proceedings under McCullen's standard. View "Reynolds v. Middleton" on Justia Law