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

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 alleged that his Sixth Amendment rights to an impartial jury and to be confronted with the witnesses against him were violated by an extraneous communication between a juror and her father during the penalty phase of his capital murder trial. The court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the communication between a juror and her father about a Bible verse had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. View "Hurst v. Joyner" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her convictions and sentence for conspiring to traffic in 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana, and of additional charges stemming from the kidnapping and murder of Michael Knight in connection with her trafficking operation. The court concluded that the district court did not err in suppressing recorded interviews where there was no legitimate basis to suppress them; pursuant to United States v. Love, the court concluded that the district court's relatively short vacation of the bench was harmless; although the district court's quantity instruction and attendant verdict form were inaccurate, the government proved that the conspiracy trafficked in tens of thousands of pounds of marijuana over its ten-year course, amounting to many multiples of the quantity required to impose a life sentence; and, therefore, the court affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to charges stemming from his involvement in a massive and organized scheme to use stolen credit card information to create counterfeit credit cards and to use such cards to make retail purchases of gift cards and high-end merchandise to be sold or returned for cash. Defendant's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief questioning whether the district court adequately complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 when accepting defendant's guilty plea and whether the district court properly sentenced defendant. The court examined the issues raised by defendant in his pro se briefing and his appellate counsel's Anders brief and concluded that all issues lack merit. In accordance with the court's obligations under Anders, the court reviewed the entire record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence, as well as the district court's order of restitution. View "United States v. Seignious" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for three counts of fraud related to his receipt of Social Security and healthcare benefits. The court concluded that, in regards to Count One and Two, the indictment was sufficient to apprise defendant of the charges against him and identify the essential elements of the crimes charged; the indictment charged the requisite intent and the court rejected defendant's argument that the government failed to allege specific intent to defraud; the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment as time barred under the statute of limitations; the court rejected defendant's challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment on Count Three; and, in regards to defendant's healthcare fraud conviction, the government presented sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find that defendant engaged in a health care fraud scheme. Accordingly, the court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment and motion for judgment of acquittal. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Perry" on Justia Law

Flying Pigs filed suit in state court against RRAJ to enforce an equitable lien against certain trademarks and associated goodwill now owned by RRAJ. RRAJ removed to federal court and the district court denied Flying Pigs's motion to remand to state court and then granted RRAJ's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The court concluded that the "necessarily raised" requirement for a "significant" federal issue had not been satisfied. Flying Pigs has not filed a complaint arising under federal law; it had initiated a foreclosure proceeding in state court to enforce an equitable lien under North Carolina law. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for the return of the litigation to state court. View "Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, foreign nationals, alleged that they were tortured and otherwise mistreated by American civilian and military personnel while detained at Abu Ghraib. CACI, a corporation domiciled in the United States, contracted with the United States to provide private interrogators to interrogate detainees at Abu Ghraib. Plaintiffs alleged that CACI employees instigated, directed, participated in, encouraged, and aided and abetted conduct towards detainees that clearly violated federal and international law. The court concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. does not foreclose plaintiffs' claims under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350, and that the district court erred in reaching a contrary conclusion. In light of Kiobel, the court held that plaintiffs' claims "touch and concern" the territory of the United States with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute. Because the court was unable to determine whether the claims presented nonjusticiable political questions, the court did not reach the additional issue of the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' common law claims. The court vacated the district court's judgment with respect to all plaintiffs' claims and remanded. View "Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of unlawfully reentering the United States. Defendant argued that a conviction of first degree burglary in Maryland is not a crime of violence because Maryland's definition of burglary exceeds the scope of generic burglary as defined by the Supreme Court. The court concluded that Maryland's first degree burglary statute encompasses "conduct that falls outside the generic definition" of burglary. As a consequence, a Maryland conviction of first degree burglary cannot constitute a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the district court erred by applying that enhancement and defendant's sentence must be vacated. View "United States v. Henriquez" on Justia Law

The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the non-debtor release provision in NHF's Chapter 11 reorganization plan was unenforceable. The court concluded that NHF has failed to demonstrate that it faces exceptional circumstances justifying the enforcement of the Release Provision in its Reorganization Plan. NHF failed to make the necessary showing to support the risk of donor litigation, nor has it carried its broader burden of justifying the non-debtor release of its Reorganization Plan. View "National Heritage Foundation v. Behrmann" on Justia Law

The Club is a non-profit provider of protection and indemnity insurance. The Club's Rules include a choice-of-law provision selecting New York law and a two-year statute of limitations for claims against the Club. The Club filed a civil action against defendant alleging that it breached the insurance contract by failing to reimburse the Club for a shortfall and by failing to pay the overdue insurance premiums. The court agreed with the district court, and precedent, that an otherwise valid choice-of-law provision in a maritime contract is enforceable and may require application of a jurisdiction's statute of limitations, in lieu of the doctrine of laches, to govern issues regarding the timeliness of claims asserted under that agreement. Accordingly, the court held that the district court correctly applied New York's six-year statute of limitations to the Club's claims arising under its maritime insurance contract with plaintiff. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "American Steamship Owners v. Dann Ocean Towing, Inc." on Justia Law

McAirlaids filed suit against Kimberly-Clark for trade-dress infringement and unfair competition under section 32(1)(a) and 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), 15 U.S.C. 1114(1)(a) and 1125(a), and Virginia law. McAirlaids produces "airlaid," a textile-like material composed of cellulose fiber. McAirlaids fuses shredded cellulose fiber ("fluff pulp") through a patented embossing process that produces a "pixel" pattern for its absorbent products. McAirlaids filed suit against Kimberly-Clark after Kimberly-Clark began using a similar dot pattern on its GoodNites bed mates, an absorbent product manufactured in a manner different from McAirlaid's pads. On appeal, McAirlaids appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Kimberly-Clark. The court concluded that McAirlaids has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the functionality of its pixel-pattern. In particular, deciding whether McAirlaid's embossing pattern affects the quality of its pads requires weighing evidence and making credibility determinations. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "McAirlaids, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp." on Justia Law