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

Plaintiff, a permanent resident alien and federal inmate, appealed the dismissal of his action under 8 U.S.C. 1503(a) for a judgment declaring him a United States national. Petitioner has resided in the United States since the age of eleven and has been a permanent resident for almost twenty-five years. Petitioner alleged that he was a United States national because he applied for citizenship, registered for the Selective Service, and declared his permanent allegiance to various United States officials. The court held that these facts failed to allege United States nationality under section 1503(a) and affirmed the dismissal of his action. Petitioner could not state a claim to be a United States national under United States v. Morin because the court must defer to the BIA's contrary, post-Morin interpretation of section 1101(a)(22). View "Patel v. Napolitano" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of child rape and other related crimes, sought state post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial lawyers denied him effective assistance of counsel in failing to notify him of, or counsel him about, a pre-trial plea offer. After conducting evidentiary hearings, the state court refused to grant him post-conviction relief. Petitioner then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court and that court granted the petition. Under the deferential standard the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254, required, the court was unable to disrupt the state court's finding that it was not reasonably probable that such a plea would have been entered here. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Merzbacher v. Shearin, et al" on Justia Law

This case involved the 18 U.S.C. 2703(d) orders pertaining to the Government's request for records of electronic communications relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The underlying facts of the investigation related to the unauthorized release of classified documents to WikiLeaks.org, and the alleged involvement of a U.S. Army Private First Class. At issue was the public's right to access orders issued under section 2703(d) and related documents at the pre-grand jury phase of an ongoing criminal investigation. Because the court found that there was no First Amendment right to access such documents, and the common law right to access such documents was presently outweighed by countervailing interests, the court denied the request for relief. View "In re: 2703(d) Application" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the Richmond International Airport and TSA agents, alleging violations of his constitutional rights when he was seized and arrested for displaying the text of the Fourth Amendment on his chest. The district court denied the TSA agents' motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim and the TSA agents appealed. Because the court found that the facts as alleged by plaintiff plausibly set forth a claim that the TSA agents violated his clearly established First Amendment rights, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Tobey v. Jones" on Justia Law

This case involved the constitutionality of the North Carolina "Woman's Right to Know Act," N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-21.80 to -21.92, a statute that required certain informed consent procedures prior to the performance of an abortion. Appellants - a group of pro-life medical professionals, women who have previously undergone abortions, and pregnancy counseling centers - filed a motion to intervene as defendants in the suit. The court affirmed the district court's denial of appellants' motion to intervene as of right based on its finding that the Attorney General was adequately representing their interests. The court held that the putative intervenor must mount a strong showing of inadequacy. In this instance, both the government agency and the would-be intervenors wanted the statute to be constitutionally sustained. The court also held that the district court did not err in concluding that appellants failed to establish adversity of interest with the Attorney General and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting appellants' claim of nonfeasance by the Attorney General. View "Stuart v. Huff" on Justia Law

Carilion initiated an arbitration proceeding against UBS and Citi under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) Rule 12200, which required FINRA members to arbitrate disputes with a customer at the customer's request. UBS and Citi commenced this action to enjoin the arbitration proceedings, contending that Carilion was not a "customer" as that term was used in FINRA Rule 12200 and that, in any event, Carilion waived any right to arbitrate by agreeing to the forum selection clause contained in written agreements with UBS and Citi. The court concluded that Carilion, by purchasing UBS and Citi's services, was indeed a "customer" entitled to arbitration under FINRA Rule 12200 and that the forum selection clause did not have the effect of superseding or waiving Carilion's right to arbitrate. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of UBS and Citi's motion for injunctive relief. View "UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Carilion Clinic" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for crimes related to his involvement in an investment scheme which resulted in nearly $100 million dollars in losses for investors. The court held that defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated where the government limited its case to events occurring while defendant was an owner of A&O to simply prove a more narrow conspiracy than was charged in the superseding indictment. Because the conspiracy proven was within the scope of those alleged in the unredacted indictment, the narrowing at most created a non-fatal variance. Finally, the court rejected defendant's claims that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Allmendinger" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two firearm offenses: (1) making a false statement that was material to the lawfulness of a firearm sale, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6); and (2) making a false statement with respect to information required to be kept in the records of a licensed firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(A). On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment and the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Concluding that the court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, the court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment because, by virtue of the bold-print warning on the ATF Form 4473, defendant was on notice that he was not the actual buyer of the handgun if he was purchasing it for someone else. The court also held that the district court did not err in declining to suppress the receipt concerning defendant's transaction with his uncle where the warrant at issue was supported by probable cause and the court rejected defendant's challenge to the scope of the search warrant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Abramski, Jr." on Justia Law

The Town appealed the district court's invalidation of its municipal sign ordinance as it applied to a resident. Dissatisfied with the Town's efforts to resolve a dispute with the resident, the resident painted the words, "Screwed by the Town of Cary" across a fifteen foot swath of the facade of his home. The court acknowledged that the Town's Sign Ordinance, and in particular its application to the resident, has aggravated some town residents who believed that it was excessively restrictive. But their recourse lies with the ballot, not the Constitution. Because the Sign Ordinance had distinguished content for a constitutionally permissible purpose, the court held that it did not violate the First Amendment. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Bowden v. Town of Cary" on Justia Law

CFIF and WVFL are 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4) organizations that engage in election-related speech. These organizations and an individual brought suit alleging that West Virginia's campaign finance statutes were constitutionally impermissible. At issue was whether West Virginia's campaign-finance reporting and disclaimer requirements could survive constitutional scrutiny, West Virginia Code section 3-8-1 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's decisions to (1) strike "newspaper, magazine or other periodical" from West Virginia's "electioneering communication" definition; (2) upheld the "electioneering communication" definition's exemption for grassroots lobbying; (3) declined to consider the merits of the CFIF's challenge to the bona fide news account exemption because the organization lacked standing; and (4) prohibited prosecutions for violations that occurred while the earlier injunctions were in effect. However, the court reversed the district court's decision with respect to (1) its conclusion that subsection (C) of the "expressly advocating" definition was unconstitutional; (2) its choice to uphold the "electioneering communication" definition's section 501(c)(3) exemption; and (3) its application of an "earmarked funds" limiting construction to the reporting requirement for electioneering communications. Because WVFL did not file a notice of appeal in this case, the court could not consider its challenge to the district court's finding that the statutory scheme's twenty-four- and forty-eight-hour reporting requirements were constitutional. Consequently, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Center for Individual Freedom v. Tennant, et al." on Justia Law