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

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. The court agreed with the district court's decision to use defendant's general court-martial convictions to classify him as an armed career criminal and rejected defendant's argument which primarily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Small v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Grant" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a death row inmate, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner claimed that an eyewitness's in-court identification violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief because the North Carolina state court's rejection of petitioner's claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established law, as determined by the Supreme Court. The court held that the procedures leading up to the eyewitness's in-court identification were not unnecessarily suggestive and that, even if they were, they did not create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The court also denied petitioner's motion for appointment of qualified and independent counsel under Martinez v. Ryan and Juniper v. Davis.View "Fowler v. Lassiter" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging a Maryland program subsidizing the participation of a new power plant in the federal wholesale energy market. Maryland's plan was ultimately formalized in the Generation Order. The district court agreed with plaintiffs' contention that the Maryland scheme was preempted under the Federal Power Act's (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824(b)(1), authorizing provisions, which grant exclusive authority over interstate rates to FERC. The court concluded that the Generation Order is field preempted because it seeks to regulate a field that the FPA has occupied. The court also concluded that the Generation Order is conflict preempted because it conflicts with the auction rates approved by FERC and conflicts with PJM's new entry price adjustment (NEPA). Accordingly, the court held that the Generation Order was preempted under federal law and affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Nazarian" on Justia Law

CSS, the debtor, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in 2012. Acting as general contractor or as a first tier subcontractor, CSS placed orders with Subcontractors, the creditor. The court held that construction subcontractors entitled to a lien on funds under North Carolina law had an interest in property when the debtor contractor filed for bankruptcy, by which time the subcontractors had not yet served notice of, and thereby perfected, their liens. Because there is no dispute that the other criteria of the applicable bankruptcy stay exception have been met, the court held that the bankruptcy court and district court correctly allowed Subcontractors to serve notice of, and thereby perfect, their liens post-petition.View "Construction Supervision Svcs v. Branch Banking & Trust" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges stemming from his distribution of substances ("bath salts") that the government alleged were prohibited by the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986, 21 U.S.C. 802(32)(A), 813. The court rejected defendant's argument that the Act is unconstitutional because he lacked notice that the distribution of controlled substance analogues is prohibited under federal law; rejected defendant's challenges to the district court's rulings made during trial; and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. McFadden" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's revocation of his supervised release. The district court found that defendant had violated his supervised release by, among other things, possessing marijuana. The district court's finding relied in part on a laboratory report prepared by a forensic examiner who did not testify at the hearing. The court vacated the sentence and remanded, holding that the district court erred by denying defendant a chance to cross-examine the forensic examiner.View "United States v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

Respondent appealed the district court's order concluding that he was a sexually dangerous person under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, and committing him to the custody of the Attorney General. The court concluded that the procedure set forth in 18 U.S.C. 4248(a) for initiating proceedings for the civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person supplants the summons requirement set forth in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That the government has physical custody over the respondent in section 4248 civil commitment proceedings obviates the need for a summons. The court concluded that the government easily presented sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that, by clear and convincing evidence, respondent, as a result of his pedophilia, would have serious difficulty in refraining from child molestation if released. The court rejected respondent's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. De La Luz Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions on five counts of narcotics trafficking. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in its evidentiary rulings as viewed in their totality. The court held that safeguards adopted by the district court to avoid the substantial risk of prejudice inhering in the jury's receipt of the decoding expert's testimony was inadequate. Neither the district court's cautionary instructions to the jury nor its sporadic sustaining of some of counsel's objections adequately mitigated the risk of substantial prejudice. Further, the errors were not harmless. Although the court discerned no reversible error in the district court's denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal, the court held that the errors in the decoding expert's testimony so infected the entire trial that the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an assistant district attorney (ADA) for the county, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, against defendant, the elected district attorney (DA) during plaintiff's tenure, alleging that he was fired for exercising his free-speech rights in violation of the United States and North Carolina Constitutions. The district court granted summary judgment against defendants. The court reversed, concluding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant on the First Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity. A reasonable DA in defendant's position would have known that he could not fire an ADA running for public office for speaking publicly in his capacity as a candidate on matters of public concern when the speech was critical of a program that substantially reduced the DA's office's caseload but there was no reason to believe the speech would negatively impact the DA's office's efficiency. The court reversed the summary judgment on the state-law claims as well. View "Smith v. Gilchrist, III" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer for racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981. Plaintiff's claims were based on two conversations she had with a coworker where the coworker made racially derogatory and highly offensive comments. The court concluded that the district court did not err in excluding plaintiff's answers to interrogatories from consideration as part of the summary judgment record. The court also concluded that, while in the abstract, continued repetition of racial comments of the kind plaintiff's coworker made might have led to a hostile work environment, no allegation in the record suggested that a plan was in motion to create such an environment, let alone that such an environment was even likely to occur. Plaintiff had not presented evidence such that a reasonable juror could find that her workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment. The statements at issue were singular and isolated. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgmentView "Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp." on Justia Law