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

The MTA applied to the Board to abandon freight transportation use of a right-of-way and to convert it to a recreational trail, as authorized by the National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. 1247. The Board rejected the MTA's application, concluding that instead of assuming full responsibility for legal liability or indemnifying the MTA for any potential liability, the proposed sponsors conditioned their undertakings by subjecting them to sovereign immunity and to future state legislative appropriations. The Board explained that instead of assuming full responsibility, the proposed sponsors offered the possibility of no responsibility. The MTA subsequently filed a petition for review. The court found that the MTA's arguments were unpersuasive, especially in light of its burden to demonstrate that the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision of the Board and denied the petition for review. View "Maryland Transit v. Surface Transportation Board" on Justia Law

Martin and Lucky Strike appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in an action to enjoin enforcement of two South Carolina anti-gaming statutes, S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2710 and 12-21-2712, which prohibited certain devices pertaining to games of chance. Because the statutes have a legitimate application, the court affirmed the district court's vagueness holding. The court further concluded that the statutes did not fall within the scope of Ex Parte Young's holding. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Martin v. Lloyd" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Republic of Angola, sought review of an order by the BIA denying his petition to obtain relief from removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182. The BIA denied petitioner asylum and withholding of removal under the INA because he was a member of, and provided material support to, a terrorist organization. The court held that the BIA did not err in deeming petitioner statutorily ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal under the INA's Material Support Bar. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "de Almeida Viegas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four charges which were based on intentional misrepresentations he made concerning his service in the United States Marine Corps. After reviewing the parties' arguments on appeal, the court held that there was substantial evidence to support both defendant's false statement conviction and theft conviction. The court further held that the statutes underlying defendant's insignia convictions were constitutional, both on their face and as applied to defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions on all counts. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA affirming an IJ's grant of a motion by the DHS to pretermit his applications for adjustment of immigration status and for a waiver pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 212(h). The court held that the district court erred in finding petitioner barred under section 212(h) from obtaining a waiver of inadmissibility and granted the petition for review. View "Leiba v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the district court's judgment upholding the decision of the SSA denying his application for disability benefits. The court held that a VA disability determination must be accorded substantial weight in Social Security disability proceedings. The court also held that an ALJ must give retrospective consideration to medical evidence created after a claimant's last insured date when such evidence could be "reflective of a possible earlier and progressive degeneration." After considering all relevant evidence, and upon determining that plaintiff was disabled at any time, an ALJ must consult with a medical advisor if the date of onset of the disability was ambiguous. In this case, the ALJ made two errors of law in conducting his analysis of the evidence concerning whether plaintiff was disabled before his DLI and therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment. View "Bird v. Commissioner of Soc Sec" on Justia Law

Claimant filed a motion in the district court under Rule 60(b)(4) to set aside a forfeiture judgment as void because the government had filed its civil forfeiture complaint beyond the 90-day time limit imposed on it by 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(3). The court held that, while the time limit imposed on the government was mandatory, it was not jurisdictional, and because claimant did not raise this defense during the course of the forfeiture action, he forfeited it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order denying claimant's motion to vacate the forfeiture judgment. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of India, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's decision that petitioner failed to establish a clear probability of persecution on return to India on the basis of his political opinion and thus was not entitled to withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1231, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that substantial evidence in the record supported the determination that petitioner was not entitled to withholding of removal under the INA. Further, because substantial evidence supported the conclusion that petitioner was not more likely than not to face torture if removed to India, the court concluded that the IJ and the Board did not err in finding petitioner ineligible for withholding of removal under the CAT. Finally, petitioner failed to establish that his due process rights were violated by having an incompetent interpreter that provided inadequate translation. View "Singh v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's order dismissing their putative class action complaint, claiming that LP negligently designed and manufactured Trimboard, a composite building product designed and marketed for use as exterior trim around windows and doors, and violated the provisions of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1 et seq. The court held that the district court did not err in deciding that plaintiffs' negligence claims were barred by North Carolina's economic loss rule (ELR); the district court properly dismissed the UDTPA claim; and the district court properly dismissed the declaratory judgment claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Ellis v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, natives of Somalia and members of the Isaaq clan, alleged that they or members of their families were subject to torture, arbitrary detention, and extrajudicial killings by government agents under the command and control of defendant, a former high-ranking government official in Somalia. At issue was whether defendant was immune from suit under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), 28 U.S.C. 1350, and the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350. The court gave deference to the State Department's position on status-based immunity doctrines such as head-of-state immunity but, in contrast, the State Department's determination regarding conduct-based immunity was not controlling but carried substantial weight in the court's analysis. Because this case involved acts that violated jus cogens norms, the court concluded that defendant was not entitled to conduct-based official immunity under the common law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of both head-of-state and foreign official immunity to defendant. View "Yousuf v. Samantar" on Justia Law