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

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance (PCP), nine counts of distribution of PCP, and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. (appeal No. 13-14296). In appeal No. 4299, the district court imposed a consecutive sentence of 60 months for violation of supervised release arising from the convictions in No. 13-4296. Defendant appealed from both judgments but abandoned his appeal of the revocation sentence in No. 13-14299. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support each of defendant's convictions, but his sentence was substantively unreasonable where the court failed to see how the life-plus-60-months sentence reasonably reflects the seriousness of the offense or just punishment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, parents of nine-year-old E.L., who has autism, initiated an administrative complaint against the school board under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. An ALJ determined that the school board violated the IDEA by failing to provide E.L. with required speech therapy but, in all other respects, she was provided an appropriate special education program. The school board appealed and the state review officer reversed the ALJ's conclusion regarding the speech therapy. Plaintiffs then filed a civil action seeking judicial review of the administrative proceedings. The court concluded that E.L. did not exhaust her administrative remedies and that the school board did not violate the IDEA where the review officer's conclusion that E.L. received the speech therapy mandated by her individualized education program is supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "E. L. v. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging claims pursuant to the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. 1589, 1590, 1595; the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 206, 216; and Virginia contract law. Plaintiff is a citizen of the Philippines and moved to the United States to work for defendants in order to provide for her young daughter and elderly parents, all of whom reside in the Philippines. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from her allegations that she was forced to work for defendants for wages well below the minimum from 2002 until her escape in 2008. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims as time-barred. In 2008, Congress amended the TVPA to include a ten-year statute of limitations, William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), 18 U.S.C. 1595(c). The court held that applying the TVPRA's extended limitations period to claims that were unexpired at the time of its enactment does not give rise to an impermissible retroactive effect under Landgraf v. USI Film Products. In this case, plaintiff pled facts sufficient to support the conclusion that her claims were unexpired under the four-year limitations period when the 2008 TVPA went into effect. Therefore, the court concluded that, although plaintiff's state law claims are time-barred, her TVPA claims may be timely under the ten-year limitations period if they were tolled until within four years of the TVPRA's enactment, and her FLSA claim may be timely if she received actual notice of her rights within three years of filing this suit. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Cruz v. Maypa" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's affirmance of the denial of his application for adjustment of status. Petitioner, a native of Ghana, had used the identities of two American citizens to establish his eligibility for employment at McDonald's and Target. The court denied the petition for review, agreeing with the BIA that an alien, like petitioner, who falsely claims United States citizenship in seeking private employment is inadmissible as a matter of law under the false claim bar, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I). View "Dakura v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a registered nurse formerly employed by a state-operated hospital, filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-219, against two supervisors, alleging that they improperly refused to authorize overtime pay for the hours she worked in excess of 40 hours. The court concluded that the Commonwealth of Virginia is the real party in interest in this action because the actions of defendants were inextricably tied to their official duties. The court reversed and remanded where the Eleventh Amendment has withdrawn jurisdiction over suits of this nature against the States, effectively giving the Commonwealth immunity. View "Martin v. Wood" on Justia Law

Petitioner is an Afghan citizen who has lived in the United States most of his life and was found ineligible for cancellation of removal. The BIA found petitioner ineligible for removal because of a crime he committed within the first seven years of residence in the United States. Petitioner argued that the BIA should have applied the stop-time rule under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(2) because the offense and guilty plea occurred before Congress promulgated the stop-time rule. The court concluded that Congress did not expressly and unambiguously prescribe the proper reach of the stop-time rule. Under the second step of the analysis in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, the court concluded that a retroactive application of the stop-time rule would impose new and unforeseen legal consequences to prior events. Accordingly, the court applied a traditional presumption against retroactivity and granted the petition for review. View "Jaghoori v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for charges related to the intentional burning of a two-unit duplex that he owned and managed and to his recovery of insurance proceeds from the fire. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant for arson-related convictions under 18 U.S.C. 844(i) and for accessory after the fact to arson under 18 U.S.C. 3. The court also concluded that the district court properly concluded that the Van duplex was a "dwelling" under U.S.S.G. 2K1.4. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction after pleading guilty to several charges stemming from an armed robbery. The court concluded that the district court did not err in sentencing him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court concluded that, notwithstanding the Government's concession during oral argument that defendant's sentence would not be different under Alleyne v. United States, the court denied his claim because it falls short within the scope of the valid appeal waiver. Further, the Government presented sufficient evidence to find that the third-degree robbery conviction in fact exists when the district court relied on three appendices which provided consistent accounts of defendant's conviction for third-degree robbery. There is no prohibition on secondary records simply because they may contain discrepancies regarding a prior conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Archie" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Cantley and Teter filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against WRJA and others, challenging the constitutionality of strip searches and delousing procedures. The court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' summary judgment motion on Cantley's strip search claim on the grounds that the search was constitutional where the strip search of Cantley was covered under Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington. The court did not reach the constitutional merits of the strip search of Teter where the law was not clearly established at the time and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the strip search. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants as to the delousing procedures, but on the grounds that it was not clearly established that the delousing policy was unconstitutional. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cantley v. West Virginia Regional Jail" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs represented a certified class of individuals arrested between certain dates on charges not involving weapons, drugs, or felony violence, and strip searched prior to or without presentment before a court commissioner or other judicial officer. Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, two former wardens of Central Booking, challenging the strip searches of arrestees in Central Booking. The court concluded that the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, which came down almost four years after the class period closed, does not demonstrate that the law on jail strip searches either was or was not clearly established at the time these alleged searches were conducted. The district court correctly concluded that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law did not clearly establish at the time that the searches that were conducted were unlawful. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. View "West v. Murphy" on Justia Law