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

This case involved the City's adoption of an ordinance that proscribed "soliciting" in certain areas of the City. At issue was whether the ordinance restricted the free speech of individuals who regularly beg in the areas at issue. The court held that plaintiffs had standing to bring this First Amendment suit and that the complaint was improperly dismissed at the pleadings stage. The court found that plaintiffs have asserted a claim that the City enacted a content-based regulation, which was not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with possession of an unregistered firearm. A law enforcement officer, responding to an armed domestic dispute, entered a locked closet without a search warrant, arrested defendant, removed him from the residence, and gained information that indicated that a grenade may have been present in the closet. At issue was whether the district court properly excluded evidence gained from the warrantless search. The court concluded that exigent circumstances did not exist to justify the warrantless search in this case and therefore, the evidence obtained from such a search was properly excluded. View "United States v. Yengel, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of interstate domestic violence and attempted witness intimidation. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred by declining to suppress certain aspects of the government's evidence stemming from his cell-mate's activities after speaking to the police which, defendant alleged, were obtained in deprivation of his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel. The court concluded that no acts imputable to the State worked any deprivation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel with respect to the federal charges of which he stood convicted. The court held, however, that a substantial question remained as to whether those same acts contravened defendant's Fifth Amendment rights. The court held that remand was unnecessary in this instance because any Fifth Amendment error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Holness" on Justia Law

Vitol brought the underlying action against S&P seeking to "pierce the corporate veil" and enforce a judgment against S&P it had previously obtained against Capri Marine. The district court granted motions to dismiss and to vacate attachment filed by S&P after determining that its exercise of admiralty jurisdiction was proper. The court agreed that the district court properly exercised admiralty jurisdiction over Vitol's claims. On the merits, however, the court concluded that dismissal was appropriate pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) where Vitol's allegations were conclusory and contained legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, and the district court's order of attachment was properly vacated. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Vitol, S.A. v. Capri Marine LTD" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of coram nobis, filed pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a). The petition alleged that the Supreme Court's decision in Skilling v. United States required vacatur of petitioner's 1994 mail fraud convictions in the District of Maryland. The district court concluded that no relief could be granted even though petitioner's honest services fraud scheme did not involve bribery or kickbacks. Because petitioner would not be entitled to relief on direct appeal under Skilling, the court concluded that the fourth prerequisite for coram nobis relief - identification of "an error of the most fundamental character" - was not satisfied. Accordingly, an award of the "extraordinary" remedy of coram nobis relief was unwarranted. View "Bereano v. United States" on Justia Law

Morgan Keegan filed an action seeking to enjoin arbitration proceedings on the ground that under the controlling FINRA Rule, defendants were not "customers" of Morgan Keegan entitled to compel arbitration of their dispute. In their FINRA arbitration claim, defendants asserted that Morgan Keegan engaged in misconduct relating to the valuation and marketing of certain bond funds purchased by defendants through their brokerage firm. At issue on appeal was whether the district court erred in holding that Morgan Keegan was not subject to FINRA arbitration. The court affirmed the district court's judgment because defendants were not "customers" of Morgan Keegan, within the meaning of the disputed FINRA Rule 12200, and, therefore, were not entitled to invoke the mandatory arbitration provision contained in that rule. View "Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. v. Silverman" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the conduct of police officers lead to their son's death, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that all three officers involved in the incident were entitled to qualified immunity and awarded summary judgment in their favor. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that two of the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, but that the district court erred in awarding summary judgment in favor of the officer who repeatedly activated his taser at plaintiffs' son. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Meyers, Sr. v. Baltimore County, Maryland" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, sought discretionary relief from his removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111, Stat. 2160, 2198. The BIA found petitioner ineligible for relief because he was unable to demonstrate that his 1996 Virginia conviction for assault and battery was not a crime of violence. The court concluded that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996's, 8 U.S.C. 321(c), retroactive application of the revised definition of "aggravated felony" survived petitioner's constitutional challenges. The court also held that the government had demonstrated that petitioner's removability and petitioner had failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for discretionary relief from removal, as afforded by NACARA. Accordingly, the court denied his petitions for review. View "Mondragon v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Bethel brought this action asserting that the County's zoning regulations, which prevented Bethel from constructing a church, violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., the United States Constitution, and the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the County on all claims. The court concluded that the County had presented no evidence that its interest in preserving the integrity of the rural density transfer zone could not be served by less restrictive means, like a minimum lot-size requirement or an individualized review process. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the County on Bethel's substantial burden claim. The court affirmed in all other respects and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery County Council" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants. Plaintiff is a pre-operative transsexual suffering from a diagnosed and severe form of a rare, medically recognized illness known as gender identity disorder (GID). She alleged that, in light of defendants' knowledge of her ongoing risk of self-mutilation, defendants' continued denial of consideration for sex reassignment surgery constituted deliberate indifference to her serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff's complaint stated a claim for relief that was plausible on its face and therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "De'Lonta v. Johnson" on Justia Law