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

Carnell, a "minority-owned" corporation, filed suit against the Housing Authority and Blaine based on claims of race discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract. The court held that a corporation can acquire a racial identity and establish standing to seek a remedy for alleged race discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, but that the district court properly dismissed one of the defendants from liability on plaintiff's race discrimination claims; the district court abused its discretion in permitting the use of particular impeachment evidence, which should have been excluded as unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403; and the district court properly reduced certain damages awarded to plaintiff on its contract claims, but decided that the strict notice requirements of the Virginia Public Procurement Act, Virginia Code 2.2-4300 through 4377, required the court to narrow further the scope of recoverable contract damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Carnell Construction Corp. v. Danville RHA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, companies that contracted with the government to provide certain services at military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, contending that they suffered harm as a result of the contractors' waste disposal and water treatment practices. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' state tort and contract claims prior to discovery, holding that the claims were nonjusticiable, the contractors were immune from suit, and federal law preempted the state tort laws underlying plaintiffs' claims. Because the district court lacked the information necessary to dismiss plaintiffs' claims on these bases, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Metzgar v. KBR, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentencing enhancement after pleading guilty to possessing child pornography. At sentencing, the district court determined that, as part of the offense, defendant caused a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of that conduct. The court agreed with its sister circuits that the cross-reference's purpose requirement was satisfied anytime one of the defendant's purposes was to produce a visual depiction of the sexually explicit conduct. On these facts, the court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(c)(1) cross-reference and that defendant's sentence was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Cox" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit challenging his arrests for refusing to obey Officer Early's repeated orders to confine his leafleting to the area designated for protest activities outside the First Mariner Arena in Baltimore. The designated protest area was defined by a written policy of the City and the BCPD. The court held that the policy was facially valid under the First Amendment as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. The court found that the district court committed no reversible error as to plaintiff's remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. View "Ross v. Early" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for interstate transport of a minor with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution or other criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(a). The court concluded that the district court correctly instructed the jury that under section 2423(a), the government was not required to prove that defendant knew that the victim was a minor. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an upward variance where the district court concluded that the advisory sentencing range neither provided adequate deterrence nor adequately protected the public. Further, the extent of the variance was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Washington" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs raised an as-applied challenge to North Carolina's May 17 petition-filing deadline for the formation of new political parties. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' Rule 50(d) motion where discovery was not necessary to determine the constitutionality of the deadline. Balancing the character and magnitude of the burdens imposed against the extent to which the regulations advanced the state's interests, the court found that North Carolina's choice of May 17 as the operative deadline outweighed the modest burden imposed on plaintiffs. Therefore, the court held that the May 17 petition-filing deadline was constitutional as applied to plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Pisano v. Strach" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for the robbery of P & S Coins and the planned robbery of All American Coins. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict Defendant Janson of robbing P & S Coins where the evidence of his partial fingerprint on duct tape, a moveable object, used in the robbery and his possession of a gun that had been taken during the P & S Coins robbery, which occurred two months prior, was insufficient to convict him; the district court erred by denying Janson's motion for judgment of acquittal on the charges related to the P & S robbery; the government presented sufficient evidence to sustain the conspiracy and firearm convictions against Janson relating to the All American Coins robbery; and the court remanded Defendant Jimmy's case for resentencing on the brandishing charge arising from the P&S Coins robbery because the district court failed to instruct the jurors that to convict Jimmy of that offense, they needed to find that he brandished a gun. View "United States v. Strayhorn" on Justia Law

In a quiet title action, the parties disputed claims of ownership to the gas rights underlying a plot of land known as Blackshere. On appeal, EPC appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record and found no jurisdictional defect with respect to Republic Partners; the court dismissed REV from the suit where, having reviewed the parties' arguments and the record, the court was satisfied that there was no reason to believe that any party would be harmed by REV's absence, or that plaintiffs received an improper tactical advantage by including REV as a party; the court affirmed the district court's decision that the Memorandum unambiguously conveyed to Cobham the gas rights in the Blackshere Lease; the court rejected EPC's argument that because plaintiffs failed to offer the 2004 Confirmatory Assignment into the record the district court lacked a factual basis on which to find that Prima ever received title to the Blackshere Lease; the court affirmed the district court's decision that Prima was a bona fide purchaser for value in 2004 and therefore held superior title to the Blackshere Lease by virtue of its unbroken, recorded chain of title; and the court rejected EPC's challenges to the district court's procedural rulings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Trans Energy, Inc. v. EQT Production Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendant and defendant's employer for negligence under Maryland state law after a tractor-trailer truck driven by defendant struck plaintiff while he was working in a utility bucket. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant and his employer, concluding that plaintiff assumed a risk that he would be struck by a tractor-trailer truck while working above an open lane of traffic and that plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The court vacated the district court's conclusion that plaintiff assumed the risk because plaintiff's status as a worker in the street precluded availability of the assumption-of-risk defense for defendants. The court also vacated the district court's ruling that plaintiff was contributorily negligent where plaintiff was entitled to rely on his coworker to provide fair warning to him. The court remanded for trial. View "Meyers v. Lamer" on Justia Law

The FTC filed suit against defendant for engaging in deceptive internet advertising practices involving the use of a "scareware" scheme that tricked consumers into purchasing computer security software. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's judgment enjoining her from participating in the deceptive practices and holding her jointly and severally liable for equitable monetary consumer redress. The court concluded that the district court had sufficient statutory power to award "complete relief," including monetary consumer redress, which is a form of equitable relief; the court held that one may be found individually liable under the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq., if she (1) participated directly in the deceptive practices or had authority to control those practices, and (2) had or should have had knowledge of the deceptive practices; the court rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges; the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant had authority to control the deceptive acts within the meaning of the Act nor did the district court clearly err in finding that defendant directly participated in the deceptive marketing scheme; and the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant had actual knowledge of the deceptive marketing scheme and/or that she was at the very least recklessly indifferent or intentionally avoided the truth. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "FTC v. Ross" on Justia Law