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

Plaintiff appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion as untimely. Plaintiff argued that his failure to meet the requirements of section 2255(f)(4) should not bar his section 2255 motion because the vacaturs of his state convictions rendered him "actually innocent of his sentence." The court declined to apply McQuiggin v. Perkins, which held that a defendant who demonstrated actual innocence of his crime of conviction may, in extraordinary circumstances, proceed with a habeas petition that otherwise would have been statutorily time-barred. The court held that McQuiggin does not apply to habeas claims based on actual innocence of a sentence and, therefore, affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the EPA seeking declaratory relief in connection with its administrative enforcement proceedings against her. CBF moved to intervene but the district court denied the motion as untimely. The court concluded that when CBF moved to intervene, the proceedings had already reached a relatively advanced stage. Further, CBF conceded that its belated intervention would cause some delay and would require plaintiffs to expend "extra effort." CBF's deliberate forbearance understandably engendered little sympathy. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene. View "Chesapeake Bay Foundation v. Alt" on Justia Law

Plaintiff successfully sued various Greenwood County Sheriff's Office officials for First Amendment violations. The court held that qualified immunity, the absence of a policy or custom of discrimination, and the nature of the relief granted here - whether considered individually or together through a "totality of the circumstances" lens - could not support the denial of attorneys' fees to plaintiff, a prevailing civil rights plaintiff; the district court abused its discretion by denying these fees and the court reversed the judgment; and the court remanded with instructions to allow plaintiff to make a fee application and for ensuing determination of the reasonable fee award for his successful prosecution of the civil rights matter, including the time spent defending entitlement to attorney's fees. View "Lefemine v. Wideman" on Justia Law

A&G owns and operates the Kelly Branch Surface Mine in Virginia. Plaintiff filed suit against A&G for declaratory and injunctive relief and civil penalties, contending that A&G was violating the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., by discharging selenium from Kelly Branch without authorization to do so. The court held that A&G could not assert a "permit shield" defense for discharges of selenium when it failed to disclose the presence of this pollutant during the permit application process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff. View "Southern Appalachian Mountain v. A & G Coal Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Nutter, alleging that Nutter was liable for conspiring with Savings First to violate the Maryland Finder's Fee Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law 12-801 to 12-809. Plaintiff borrowed from Savings First in a reverse mortgage transaction and then Nutter purchased the mortgage from Savings First. The court agreed with the district court that Nutter could not be a violator of section 12-804(e) because that statute regulates only mortgage brokers and Nutter was not a "mortgage broker" in the transaction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Nutter. View "Marshall v. James B. Nutter & Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Prosperity Mortgage, alleging that the fees Prosperity Mortgage charged at closing violated the Maryland Finder's Fee Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law 12-801 to 12-809. The court concluded that because Prosperity Mortgage was identified as the lender in the documents executed at closing, it was not a "mortgage broker" as the Act defines that term and therefore was not subject to the Act's provision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendants. View "Petry v. Prosperity Mortgage Co." on Justia Law

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