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

WMC appealed an amended order and judgment, arguing that the district court improperly used the nunc pro tunc device to extend the period during which plaintiff could refile her dismissed state law claims in state court. Because the district court's purported nunc pro tunc entry supplied an order that in fact was not previously made, the court vacated the amended order and judgment. View "Glynne v. Wilmed Healthcare" on Justia Law

This case presented a challenge to Revenue Ruling 69-59, which limited the ability of federal firearms licenses to sell firearms at out-of-state gun shows. The district court granted the Government's motion to dismiss this action, finding that the statute of limitations barred it. Because the agency published Revenue Ruling 69-59 in 1969, the six-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. 2401(a) has long since expired. Plaintiffs' contention that their cause of action did not accrue until they became federally licensed firearms dealers in 2008 failed. The court rejected plaintiffs' alternative argument and affirmed the judgment. View "Hire Order Ltd v. Marianos" on Justia Law

Approximately three months before respondent was to be released from federal prison, the government sought to commit him as a "sexually dangerous person," 18 U.S.C.A. 4248(a), under the civil-commitment provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court held that the government failed to prove that respondent suffered from pedophilia and failed to prove he would have serious difficulty refraining from re-offending. Thus, the district court dismissed the petition and ordered respondent released. The government subsequently appealed. The court held that the district court erred in its conclusion that the application of the Act to respondent violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The court also held, among other things, that the record did not support the district court's determination that respondent did not suffer from various mental illnesses, abnormalities, or disorders because he no longer suffered from pedophilia. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Wooden" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possessing a firearm while a convicted felon and the district court's imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment. The court affirmed the conviction but concluded, however, that the district court erred in applying the murder cross-reference provision in U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(c)(1) and in treating as relevant conduct a murder that occurred during the course of an unrelated and uncharged offense, which error substantially increased defendant's advisory Guidelines range. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Horton" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence for his role in a bank robbery and mid-escape home intrusion, which ended in the death of an elderly woman who died of a heart attack. The court found that only one of defendant's contentions had merit - that the district court erred in instructing the jury on an offense not charged in the indictment. Therefore, the court vacated the conviction and sentence on the uncharged death results offense and remanded for entry of a judgment of conviction on Count Four regarding the forced accompaniment offense and for appropriate resentencing proceedings. The court affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "United States v. Whitfield" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from plaintiff's claim for survivor benefits after her husband was awarded total disability benefits in 1993 under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 932, until his death in 2000. The liable employer subsequently filed a modification request seeking reconsideration of the award of benefits. In 2004, the ALJ agreed to modify the 1993 award, retroactively denying plaintiff's living miner's claim and also rejecting her survivor's claim. On plaintiff's petition for review of the ALJ's decision, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the ALJ had failed to exercise the discretion accorded to him with respect to the modification request. On remand, the ALJ again denied plaintiff's claims but the Benefits Review Board (BRB) reversed. The employer petitioned for review and the court denied the petition, affirming the BRB's decision denying modification. View "Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Sharpe" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of drug charges in 2004 and almost six years later, he filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 seeking to vacate his sentence in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder. Because the Supreme Court's decision in Carachuri at most altered the procedural requirements that must be followed in applying recidivist enhancements and did not alter the range of conduct or the class of persons subject to criminal punishment, the court held that Carachuri was a procedural rule. Therefore, Carachuri was not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Thus, defendant's section 2255 motion must be dismissed as untimely pursuant to section 2255(f)(3). View "United States v. Powell" on Justia Law

This matter was previously before the Fourth Circuit on appeal. Petitioner Justin Michael Wolfe, a Virginia prisoner, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by the Commonwealth in 2002. By its decision in 2009, the Court remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, "Wolfe I" instructed the district court to determine whether Petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing and other discovery; to decide in the first instance whether, under "Schlup v. Delo," (513 U.S. 298 (1995)), Petitioner had made a sufficient showing of actual innocence to clear any procedural bars to his constitutional claims; and to assess Petitioner claim, among others, that the prosecution had contravened his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, as recognized in "Brady v. Maryland," (373 U.S. 83 (1963)), by suppressing favorable and material evidence. On remand, the district court heeded the Fourth Circuit's "Wolfe I" mandate, authorized appropriate discovery and conducted an evidentiary hearing, and ruled in Petitioner's favor on the Schlup issue and his Brady and two additional claims. The court vacated Petitioner's capital murder and other convictions, and ordered the Commonwealth to either retry him within 120 days or release him unconditionally from custody. The judgment was stayed pending this appeal by the Commonwealth, which was initiated on its behalf by Respondent Harold Clarke, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections. The Commonwealth challenged the remand proceedings from start to finish, contending that the district court erred in its procedural and substantive rulings. Because the Fourth Circuit concluded that the court's award of habeas corpus relief on Petitioner's Brady claim was not made in error, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment. View "Wolfe v. Clarke" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Earl Whittley Davis of various federal offenses arising from a course of conduct that included the armed robbery and murder during that robbery of an armored car employee, Jason Schwindler, as well as a subsequent carjacking. On appeal, Defendant challenged the use of DNA evidence against him at trial, and also argued that the district court erred in excluding expert testimony proffered by Defendant in an attempt to undermine an eyewitness identification of him. Upon review of the matter, the Fourth Circuit found no error and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Five years after Eric Wilson fully served his sentence for a Virginia state rape conviction, he filed a habeas corpus petition to challenge his conviction. To satisfy the statute's jurisdictional requirement that he be "in custody" at the time he filed his petition, Wilson alleged that the sex offender registration requirements of Virginia and Texas law impose sufficiently substantial restraints on his liberty so as to amount to custody. The district court dismissed Wilson’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that because he had fully served the sentence for his rape conviction, he was no longer "in custody," as required by statute. Upon review of the matter, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court and affirmed its decision. View "Wilson v. Flaherty" on Justia Law