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

MASC filed an action in the district court seeking a declaration that South Carolina municipalities were entitled to assess municipal business license taxes based on, or measured by, the total flood insurance premiums collected in the particular municipality by insurance companies under an arrangement with FEMA. The district court denied the insurance companies' motion for summary judgment on grounds of preemption and sovereign immunity. The flood insurance premiums were federal property that could not be taxed and the participating private insurance companies, in their operation of and participation with the National Flood Insurance Program, were federal instrumentalities so closely connected with the federal government that they were immune from taxation. The federal government did not consent to this tax, and it was therefore invalid. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment to MASC and denial of summary judgment to the insurance companies. View "Municipal Assoc. of SC v. USAA General Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

The Trustee in bankruptcy of ESA appealed from the affirmance by the district court of the award of summary judgment by the bankruptcy court to Hanover. The bankruptcy court concluded that ESA's transfer of $1.375 million to Hanover within 90 days of ESA's filing a petition for bankruptcy was not an avoidable preference under 11 U.S.C. 547(b). The court held that, although the bankruptcy court erred in finding that the earmarking defense applied in this case, the court found no error in its determination that Hanover was entitled to the new value defense under section 547(c) to the Trustee's claim of a preferential transfer. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court awarding summary judgment to Hanover. View "ESA Environmental Specialists, Inc. v. The Hanover Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's decision allowing him to represent himself at trial in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Indiana v. Edwards. The heightened standard discussed in Edwards, which applied when the district court considered whether to force counsel on a severely mentally ill defendant competent to stand trial who wished to represent himself, did not control. The court held that this case was more akin to Godinez v. Moran because the district court granted defendant's request to represent himself. Because the court rejected defendant's interpretation of Edwards and was satisfied that the district court applied the correct legal standard, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bernard" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of crimes stemming from a scheme where he faked his death with the assistance of his girlfriend in order to avoid a state probation violation hearing. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. Although the government did not prove that defendant's girlfriend was aware and therefore intended that the U.S. Coast Guard would respond to the false distress call, it proved that she knew of and participated in the plan and that, under the plan, a false distress call would be made. With this proof and proof that the U.S. Coast Guard received the call, the government established a conspiracy to violate 14 U.S.C. 88(c), regardless of whether the conspirators knew or intended that the Coast Guard would receive the call. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not "plainly unreasonable," the standard applicable when, as here, no Guidelines existed for the offenses committed. View "United States v. Deffenbaugh" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, seeking to offer services as a psychic and spiritual counsel in the County of Chesterfield, challenged the application of regulations enacted by the County affecting fortune tellers. The County regulated fortune tellers in four ways, one of which was applicable to all those operating a business in the County, with the others more specific to fortune tellers. The district court considered and rejected plaintiff's claims and plaintiff subsequently appealed. The court held that the First Amendment Free Speech Clause afforded some degree of protection to plaintiff's activities where the County could not establish either premise of its argument that fortune telling was inherently deceptive speech outside the scope of the First Amendment. However, the County's regulations did not abridge plaintiff's First Amendment freedom of speech where the County's regulation of plaintiff's activities fell squarely within the scope of the professional speech doctrine. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that granting summary judgment to the County on plaintiff's constitutional and statutory religion claims was proper where plaintiff's beliefs comprised a way of life, and not a religious exercise. Finally, plaintiff's Equal Protection argument failed where the court, applying rational basis review, held that the County's regulatory scheme was rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Moore-King v. County of Chesterfield, VA" on Justia Law

Defendant, a juvenile, appealed from the judgment of the district court which imposed, as a condition of his juvenile delinquent supervision, that he register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq. The court held that the district court did not err by imposing the sex offender registration condition because the court concluded that Congress, in enacting SORNA, intentionally carved out a class of juveniles from the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act's, 18 U.S.C. 5031 et seq., confidentiality provisions, and that SORNA's registration requirements were not punitive as applied to defendant. View "United States v. Under Seal" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, prospective luxury home buyers, alleged that Toll Brothers, a real estate development company, unlawfully refused to return deposits when plaintiffs could not obtain mortgage financing. The district court denied Toll Brothers' motion to dismiss or stay the suit pending arbitration, finding that the Agreement of Sale's arbitration provision lacked mutuality of consideration under Maryland law because it required only the buyer - but not the seller - to submit disputes to arbitration. The court held that the appeal was properly before it under 9 U.S.C. 16(a), and that the Agreement of Sale's arbitration provision was unenforceable for lack of mutual consideration under Maryland law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Noohi v. Toll Bros., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an architecture firm that specialized in designing single family homes, alleged that Lennar's architectural plans infringed on its copyrights. The court held that plaintiff did not have sufficient evidence to support a finding that there existed a reasonable possibility that Lennar had access to its copyrighted plans. Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded that as a matter of law, plaintiff lacked the evidence necessary to sustain its claims of copyright infringement. View "Building Graphics, Inc. v. Lennar Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress a firearm on the basis that it was the fruit of an unlawful seizure of his person. The court concluded that defendant was seized when his ID was retained while his companions were frisked. The totality of the factors outlined by the district court - an individual's presence at a gas station; prior arrest history of another individual; lawful possession and display of a firearm by another; defendant's submission of his ID showing an out-of-district address; all of which occurred in a high crime area at night - failed to support the conclusion that the officer had a reasonable suspicion to detain defendant. Therefore, the court held that there was no reasonable suspicion justifying defendant's seizure and the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Black" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to distributing five or more grams of crack cocaine. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court incorrectly calculated the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed an "illegal" and substantively unreasonable sentence. Defendant also contended that the district court's denial of his motion to continue his sentencing hearing was an abuse of discretion. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss with regard to the sentencing issues that fell within the scope of defendant's valid appeal waiver and affirmed as to his contentions regarding the continuance where the district court's denial was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. View "United States v. Copeland" on Justia Law