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

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, sentencing Joshua Aaron Roy to 120 months imprisonment and five years of supervised release for unlawful possession of a firearm and aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute at least 40 grams of fentanyl. The court rejected Roy's claim that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable, holding that the district court did not rely on clearly erroneous facts or evidence outside the record. The specifics of the case involved Roy driving his stepdaughter and her partner in the latter's vehicle, suspected by law enforcement to be transporting narcotics. Following a traffic stop, the officers seized 447 fentanyl capsules weighing 61.98 grams from the partner. Roy was subsequently arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm after being identified on surveillance footage following a report of shoplifting. The court found that the district court's statements about the lethality of fentanyl and the connection between the two offenses constituted permissible reliance on facts within the record. It concluded that any error in the reference to multiple firearms did not alter the court's understanding that Roy had possessed a single firearm and was therefore harmless. View "US v. Roy" on Justia Law

In this case heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the plaintiff, Daniella Easterbrook, appealed the denial of her application for disability benefits by the Social Security Administration. Easterbrook, who has suffered from persistent back pain since 2011, argued that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to provide a "good reason," supported by substantial evidence, for not giving adequate weight to the opinions of her treating physician, Dr. John Kim.The court agreed with Easterbrook, stating that the ALJ erred in not applying the "treating source rule" to Dr. Kim's opinions and not providing a sufficient justification for giving his opinions less weight. The court noted that Dr. Kim's opinions were well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and were consistent with the substantial evidence in the record.The court also found that the ALJ's reasons for discounting Dr. Kim's opinions, such as Easterbrook's decision not to undergo certain treatments, were inappropriate and did not constitute "good reasons." The court stated that a patient's refusal to pursue a specific type of medical treatment does not automatically call into question the severity of her pain.As a result, the court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for a determination consistent with its opinion. View "Easterbrook v. Kijakazi" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on a motion to intervene in an appeal filed by a coalition of civil rights organizations. The original lawsuit was brought by the Association for Education Fairness against the Montgomery County Board of Education and its superintendent, alleging that a new admissions policy for magnet schools in the county was discriminatory against Asian American students. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the admissions policy was not enacted with discriminatory intent and did not have a disparate impact on Asian American students.After the Association appealed the district court's decision, the civil rights organizations moved to intervene in the appeal. They argued that the Board may not adequately defend the district court's disparate impact holding on appeal. However, the Board assured the court that it intended to defend this holding.The Court of Appeals denied the motion to intervene without prejudice, stating that it trusted the Board's representation that it would defend the disparate impact holding. The court also noted that if the organizations were granted intervention, their rights would be largely the same as those of amici, or friends of the court. They would be able to file a separate brief and attempt to participate in oral argument, both of which they could also do as amici. The court also found that the organizations' argument that they needed to be parties in order to participate in potential future Supreme Court proceedings was speculative and contingent on unknown factors. As a result, the court found no need to grant the motion to intervene. View "Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education" on Justia Law

In this case between Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Zayo Group, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment on the pleadings. The dispute arose from a lease agreement between the parties, in which Zayo leased a utility duct from Norfolk Southern. When the time came to renew the lease, the parties could not agree on the renewal rent and referred the dispute to three appraisers, as specified in the lease. The appraisers decided the rent by a two-to-one vote, but Zayo refused to pay the rent, arguing that the decision was not unanimous. Norfolk Southern sued for breach of the lease, and the district court entered judgment for Norfolk Southern, ordering Zayo to pay the rental amount determined by the appraisers. Zayo appealed, contending that the appraisers could determine the rent only by unanimous vote. The Fourth Circuit held that the lease's language was unambiguous and did not impose a unanimity requirement on the appraisers. Therefore, it found that Zayo breached the lease by refusing to pay the full amount determined by the appraisers. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, requiring Zayo to pay the rental amount determined by the appraisers. View "Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Zayo Group, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court's dismissal of claims brought by Charles Willis Short, the husband and estate administrator of Victoria Christine Short, who died by suicide while in custody at the Davie County Detention Center. Mr. Short filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several employees of the Davie County Sheriff’s Department, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment for deliberate indifference to Ms. Short’s risk of suicide. The district court dismissed all of Mr. Short's claims, applying a subjective standard for determining deliberate indifference.The Fourth Circuit disagreed with the lower court's application of the subjective standard, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, which established an objective standard for determining deliberate indifference in cases involving pretrial detainees. The court decided that pretrial detainees can state a Fourteenth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to an excessive risk of harm on an objective standard, finding that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to state a claim under any standard. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Short v. Hartman" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the defendant, Brent Brewbaker, appealed from his conviction of a per se antitrust violation under § 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as five counts of mail and wire fraud. Brewbaker had asked the district court to dismiss the Sherman Act count for failure to state an offense, but the court denied his motion. The court of appeals reversed Brewbaker’s Sherman Act conviction, finding that the indictment failed to state a per se antitrust offense as it purported to do. The court, however, affirmed his fraud convictions and remanded the case for resentencing.The legal basis for the case was Brewbaker's argument that the indictment should have been dismissed because it did not state a per se Sherman Act offense, a claim that the appellate court agreed with. The court explained that the indictment alleged a restraint that was both horizontal and vertical in nature, which does not fit neatly into either category as per existing case law. The court further noted that the Supreme Court had not yet clarified how to analyze an agreement between two parties with both vertical and horizontal aspects. The court concluded that the indictment did not allege a restraint that has been previously held to be per se illegal, nor one that economics showed would invariably lead to anticompetitive effects, and thus failed to state a per se violation of the Sherman Act.The court also rejected Brewbaker's claim that the jury instructions on the Sherman Act count "infected" the jury’s consideration of the fraud counts, noting that the fraud counts were not dependent on finding Brewbaker guilty under the Sherman Act. It further cited the presumption that juries follow instructions, and found no extraordinary situation to overcome this presumption. Therefore, the fraud convictions were affirmed. View "US v. Brent Brewbaker" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty in 2011 to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a “crime of violence” in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c), with the underlying crime of violence being VICAR assault with a dangerous weapon. Since his conviction, the Supreme Court has narrowed the kinds of crimes that can support a Section 924(c) conviction. At issue is whether VICAR assault with a dangerous weapon is still one of them.   The Fourth Circuit upheld Defendant’s conviction and found that VICAR assault with a dangerous weapon remains a valid crime-of-violence predicate. The court explained that the VICAR statute makes it a crime to commit any of the statute’s enumerated offenses “in violation of the laws of any State or the United States.” The court explained that it has interpreted this language to mean that one element of a VICAR conviction is that the defendant committed the enumerated federal offense, and another is that the defendant’s conduct violated an independent state or federal law. The court wrote that the federal assault with a dangerous weapon easily qualifies as a crime of violence. That this element of VICAR assault with a dangerous weapon qualifies as a crime of violence is sufficient in and of itself to render the offense a crime of violence; we need not progress to the state-law predicates. The court explained that to require courts to “look through” the VICAR offense to the underlying state crimes in every instance would unnecessarily send them on a scramble through innumerable state laws across the circuit. View "US v. Dearnta Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 123 months’ imprisonment followed by a five-year term of supervised release after pleading guilty to drug distribution and firearms charges. At the sentencing hearing, the judge told Defendant that he would be “subject to the standard conditions” of supervised release “as adopted in the Eastern District of North Carolina.” However, the subsequent written judgment contained several special conditions of supervised release not mentioned in the oral pronouncement. These were no minor alterations. One special condition forbade Defendant from opening new lines of credit without permission. Another stipulated Defendant’s consent to warrantless searches of his person or his home whenever his probation officer saw fit. Defendant sent the district court a letter indicating his desire to appeal—223 days after the entry of judgment in his case and long after Rule 4(b)’s deadline had expired. The government promptly moved to dismiss his appeal as untimely.   The Fourth Circuit granted the government’s motion to dismiss. The court explained that in United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020), the addition of such unpronounced conditions is an error that violates the defendant’s right to be present at sentencing. When a defendant timely appeals a Rogers error, the court must vacate the sentence and remand for the defendant to be sentenced anew. However, here, Defendant filed his notice of appeal well outside the time limits imposed by Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court held that defendants who raise Rogers errors are not excused from the usual timeliness rules for filing a notice of appeal. View "US v. Gregory Brantley" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed holding a consolidated trial on the merits of her claims and a hearing on her motion for preliminary injunction.   The Fourth Circuit denied the petition. The court explained that after reviewing the petition and the record of the district court proceedings, that either of these latter two factors support the granting of a writ of mandamus. The court explained that in the petition, Petitioner refered to her right to a “prompt evidentiary hearing” and, alternatively, to her “clear and indisputable right to expedited treatment of her PI motion” She asserted that this right is rooted in a statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1657(a), as well as Rule 40 and Rule 65(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court wrote that none of the sources entitle Petitioner to a trial prior to the currently scheduled trial date of December 11, 2023. To be sure, Section 1657(a) requires the district court in this case to “expedite the consideration of” Petitioner’s PI motion, and Rule 40 similarly requires the district court to “give priority” to that motion. But the record in this case, despite Petitioner’s protestations to the contrary, establishes that the district court has repeatedly attempted to do so. View "In re: Caryn Strickland" on Justia Law

After the district court denied Petitioner’s initial 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 petition, he obtained new counsel and filed a motion to reopen that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). He argued that exceptional circumstances warranted this relief because his original Section 2254 counsel had, in effect, abandoned him by submitting a Section 2254 petition that omitted several potentially meritorious issues and inadequately presented the issues that had been raised. He asked the court to reopen the judgment and allow him to file additional briefings and new claims. The district court concluded that Petitioner’s motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion. Rather, Petitioner was attempting to use Rule 60(b) to circumvent the statutory limits placed on second or successive Section 2254 petitions. Recognizing that it would lack jurisdiction to consider a second Section 2254 petition, the district court denied Petitioner’s motion without considering its merits. Petitioner appealed.   The Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion because he effectively sought to file a second or successive Section 2254 petition, something that a district court cannot authorize. The court also wrote that because it also concludes that the district court should have dismissed Petitioner’s motion rather than deny it, it vacated the district court’s order and remanded with instructions to dismiss. View "Steven Bixby v. Bryan Stirling" on Justia Law