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

Defendant, a citizen of Mexico, was indicted for possessing firearms while being illegally or unlawfully in the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge, contending that section 922(g)(5) violated his rights under the Second and Fifth Amendments. The district court denied the motion, holding that section 922(g)(5) was constitutional. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the scope of the Second Amendment did not extend to provide protection to illegal aliens, because illegal aliens were not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance. On defendant's Fifth Amendment challenge, the court concluded that prohibiting aliens, as a class, from possessing firearms was rationally related to Congress' legitimate interest in public safety. View "United States v. Carpio-Leon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the court's denial of his attempt to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, contending that his prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim could not count as strikes under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), because the dismissals occurred at summary judgment. The court held that the fact that an action was dismissed for these reasons, and not the case's procedural posture at dismissal, determined whether the dismissal constituted a strike under Section 1915(g). Therefore, because defendant had more than three prior cases dismissed, the court denied his motion for reconsideration. View "Blakely v. Wards" on Justia Law

Ashland Facility petitioned for review of the Board's order that Ashland Facility cease and desist from refusing to bargain with the Union. Ashland Facility contended on appeal that allegedly racially inflammatory remarks by an executive of the Virginia State Conference NAACP undermined the validity of a representation election certifying the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain Ashland Facility employees. The court concluded that the Board correctly found that even if the Virginia NAACP had been an agent of the Union, the executive's prepetition statements did not provide a basis for setting aside the election. Because the court concluded that the Union was properly certified, the court denied Ashland Facility's petition for review and enforced the Board's order. View "Ashland Facility Operations v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of federal program bribery and extortion under color of official night. The convictions arose from charges that, while a state legislator, defendant secured state funding for a public university in exchange for employment by the university. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict defendant; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury as to a gratuity; and the district court did not plainly err in its application of a fourteen-level sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Defendants Jacqueline, Tamatha, and Jimmy Hilton challenged their convictions on charges involving a scheme to defraud the Woodsmiths Company. The charges in this case arose from a two-year scheme in which defendants defrauded the company by stealing and cashing numerous checks written to the company by its customers. At issue was whether the statutes prohibiting identity theft and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(7) and 1028A, under which Jimmy and Jacqueline were convicted, encompassed the theft of the identity of a corporation. The court held that these statutes were fairly ambiguous regarding whether corporate victims were within the class of protected victims and vacated the conviction of Jimmy and Jacqueline on these counts. The court concluded that defendants' other arguments were without merit and therefore affirmed Tamatha's convictions, affirmed the remaining convictions of Jacqueline and Jimmy, but vacated the sentences imposed and remand those convictions for resentencing. View "United States v. Hilton, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry by an aggravated felon. At issue was whether the district court properly counted defendant's prior conviction for a violation of California Penal Code 422(a) as a crime of violence, justifying a sentencing enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. Section 422(a) prohibited, as a felony, willfully threatening to commit a crime that would result in death or great bodily injury. The court held that the predicate state statute was not, categorically, a crime of violence where section 422(a) did not contain an element requiring the use or threatened use of physical force. Therefore, defendant's sentencing enhancement could not stand. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Torres-Miguel" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of violating a provision of the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. 2156, based on his involvement in dogfighting activity. On appeal, defendant challenged his 60-month sentence. The court concluded that the district court's exercise of its sentencing discretion was not unreasonable where the district court conducted a thorough individualized assessment of defendant and his offense conduct in light of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Hargrove" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the district court's award of summary judgment in favor of appellees. The district court held that appellant failed to submit sufficient evidence to meet his burden with regard to various Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112, claims. Appellees cross-appealed on the ancillary issue of whether the number of employees of the National Red Cross and the Greenbrier Valley Chapter could be aggregated for purposes of determining "employer" status. The court held that appellant did not meet the ADA's definitions of disability and affirmed the district court with regard to appellant's primary ADA claim; appellant's retaliation claim based on appellant's lifting restriction and on his workers' compensation request both failed; and appellant did not have sufficient evidence to support his confidentiality claim. The court also held that Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp. dictated that the ADA's employee threshold was not a limit on jurisdiction but, rather, an element of the claim itself; the cross-appeal was not properly taken; and the court vacated the district court's ruling on the employee aggregation issue. View "Reynolds v. American National Red Cross" on Justia Law

Respondent finished serving his prison sentence for child molestation in 2008, but has remained incarcerated while the government sought to have him declared a "sexually dangerous person" pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 18 U.S.C. 4248. The government appealed the judgment of the district court that respondent be freed from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and granted supervised release. The court concluded that, contrary to the district court's legal determination and as established by the evidence, respondent indeed suffered from a qualifying mental impairment. The court nevertheless affirmed the judgment, discerning no clear error in the district court's alternative rationale that the government fell short of carrying its burden to demonstrate a relative likelihood that respondent would reoffend. View "United States v. Caporale" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for a child pornography offense. The court held that law enforcement officers had probable cause to enter into the property at issue and their subsequent inquiries regarding laptop computers were also lawful and proper. Therefore, the court rejected defendant's contention of a Fourth Amendment violation. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to dismiss and striking the lesser-included offense of possession of child pornography. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law