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

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

Freeman, a provider of integrated services for expositions, conventions, and corporate events, performed credit and criminal background check policies on job applicants, which excluded applicants whose histories revealed certain prohibited criteria. The EEOC alleged that these background checks had an unlawful disparate impact on black and male job applicants. The district court granted summary judgment to Freeman after excluding the EEOC's expert testimony as unreliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Thus, the EEOC failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, where the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony as unreliable based on the sheer number of mistakes and omissions in the expert's analysis. The court declined to consider whether the district court erred in limiting the time period in which the EEOC could seek relief, as any error in this regard was inconsequential in light of the expert's pervasive errors and utterly unreliable analysis. The court declined to reach any other issues in the district court's opinion. View "EEOC v. Freeman" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed his sentence. The district court found that defendant used the firearm in an attempted murder, but defendant disputed that he had the requisite mens rea for attempted murder. Consequently, the district court denied defendant a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. In this case, when defendant denied that his "acts and omissions" included shooting with the intent to kill, he denied relevant conduct attributable to him. Because falsely denying relevant conduct is "inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility," the district court did not err by denying defendant a three-level reduction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Burns" on Justia Law

Beyond Systems, an internet service provider, filed suit against Kraft and Connexus seeking damages under California's and Maryland's anti-spam statutes based upon several hundred e-mails which it alleges were unlawful spam. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that Beyond Systems had Article III standing by claiming a harm: receiving spam e-mail. On the merits, the court agreed with the district court that Beyond Systems is barred from recovery because it consented to the harm underpinning its anti-spam claims. In this case, Beyond Systems created fake e-mail addresses, solely for the purpose of gathering spam; it embedded these addresses in websites so that they were undiscoverable except to computer programs that serve no other function than to find e-mail accounts to spam; it increased its e-mail storage capacity to retain a huge volume of spam; and it intentionally participated in routing spam e-mail between California and Maryland to increase its exposure to spam and thereby allow it to sue under both states' laws. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Beyond Systems v. Kraft Foods" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to knowingly failing to register as a sex offender as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250(a). The indictment alleged that defendant was subject to SORNA's registration requirement because of his prior South Carolina conviction for the common law offense of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. The court concluded that the Denial Order properly applied the "circumstance-specific approach" (the noncategorical approach) in deciding that defendant was subject to SORNA's registration required. However, the district court erred in ruling that defendant's conviction was for a sex offense under U.S.S.G. 5D1.2(b)(2). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Price" on Justia Law