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

A German court denied Father's petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 98, and a German appellate court affirmed. Consequently, Mother did not have to return the children to North Carolina. On a one-month visit to North Carolina, Father decided to keep the children. The district court accorded comity to the German appellate court's decision and granted Mother's Hague petition. The children were ordered to return to Germany. Father appealed. The court rejected Father's arguments on appeal and concluded that the district court properly extended comity because the German court's decision neither clearly misinterpreted the Hague Convention nor failed to meet a minimum standard of reasonableness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smedley v. Smedley" on Justia Law

The Forest Service manages the Chatooga River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), 16 U.S.C. 1274 et seq. In 2012, the Forest Service revised its management plan for the Chatooga to allow floating on most of the Headwaters during the winter months, when flows are highest and conditions are best. American Whitewater argues that the revised plan does not go far enough and that the remaining limits on floating are inconsistent with the WSRA and arbitrary and capricious. Two intervening parties, ForestWatch and the Rusts, argue that the Forest Service's decision to allow floating goes too far, contending that the WSRA prohibits any floating on the Headwaters whatsoever, and that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The court agreed with the district court's well-reasoned opinion where the district court rejected both sets of challenges and found that the Forest Service's revised plan carefully balanced the wide-ranging interests advocated by the several parties and participants. The court affirmed the judgment. View "American Whitewater v. Thomas Tidwell" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and appealed his 37-month sentence. Applying the categorical approach, the court concluded that defendant's prior first-degree burglary under California Penal Code 459 and 460(a) qualified for an eight-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) because it was a crime of violence under the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. 16(b). Contrary to defendant's assertion otherwise, the district court's explanation of its sentence was more than sufficient to preclude a finding of error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Avila" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for violating the conditions of his supervised release. Defendant was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment, the mandatory minimum term required by a former version of the supervised release statute, 18 U.S.C. 3583(g). The court concluded that the district court correctly applied the former version of Section 3583(g), because that version of the statute was in effect when defendant committed the underlying crimes; Alleyne v. United States does not apply in the context of supervised release revocation proceedings; and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's sentence. View "United States v. Ward" on Justia Law

The Bank commenced this adversary proceeding in Restivo's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, seeking a judgment declaring that the security interest it acquired on January 4, 2005, had priority over the IRS's tax lien filed on January 10, 2005, regardless of the fact that it did not record its security interest until after the IRS had filed notice of its tax lien. The district court granted the Bank priority. The court rejected the district court's holding that Md. Code. Ann., Real Prop. 3-201 gives the Bank retroactive priority over the IRS, concluding that 26 U.S.C. 6323(h)(1)(A)'s use of the present perfect tense precludes giving effect to the Maryland statute's relation-back provision. However, the court affirmed the judgment based on the ground that under Maryland common law, the Bank acquired an equitable security interest in the two parcels of real property on January 4, regardless of recordation, because its interest became protected against a subsequent lien arising out of an unsecured obligation on that date and that therefore its security interest had priority over the IRS's tax lien under sections 6323(a) and 6323(h)(1). View "Susquehanna Bank v. United States/Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to bribing a private correctional officer and to conspiracy. Defendant's conviction stemmed from bribing correctional officers thousands of dollars to smuggle cell phones and tobacco products into the correctional facility where defendant was an inmate. The court concluded that the correctional officers defendant bribed occupied a sensitive position within the meaning of U.S.S.G. 2C1.1(b)(3). Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's application of a four-level enhancement under section 2C1.1(b)(3) after finding that the offense involved a public official in a sensitive position. View "United States v. Dodd" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for drug and possession charges. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime; the district court did not clearly err in treating defendant's alleged participation in the transaction at issue as "relevant conduct" under U.S.S.G. 1B1.3(a); the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) for committing an offense that involved three or more firearms where enhancing a defendant's offense level based on the number of weapons involved in the offense underlying his 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction does not constitute impermissible double counting under the Guidelines; and the district court did not err in applying a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(5) on the ground that defendant "engaged in the trafficking of firearms." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pineda" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the denial of his various applications for relief from deportation. The court granted the petition because of erroneous inadmissibility rulings, which would preclude petitioner from obtaining adjustment of status. Petitioner contended that the BIA erred in affirming the Second IJ's Decision's determination that he is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) for having made willful misrepresentations to procure an immigration benefit; the willful misrepresentation ruling was predicated on the Initial IJ Decision's credibility ruling; the IJ thereby utilized an erroneous legal standard in rendering the willful misrepresentation ruling; and applying the proper legal principles, the willful misrepresentation ruling is not supported by substantial evidence. View "Yang v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, contending that the district court erred in considering any 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors other than substantial assistance when determining the extent of his sentence reduction below the mandatory minimum. The court concluded that, following United States v. Hood, the district court correctly concluded that, once it had departed below a mandatory minimum sentence on the basis of a defendant's substantial assistance, it could not further depart based on any non-assistance factor. The court rejected defendant's arguments to the contrary. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Spinks" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 111 for four counts arising from intimate sexual activities in a national park and ensuing physical altercation with U.S. Park Police officers. The court concluded that it was proper for the district court to instruct the jury that defendant could have committed any of the threshold acts charged - not only "assault" - to be found guilty of a section 111 offense, so long as the other elements of the offense were satisfied. Further, given the overwhelming evidence, the court found no reversible error in the district court's admittance of evidence of a subsequent crime under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Briley" on Justia Law