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

Defendant sought relief from a sentence of 240 months in prison, imposed as a result of his illegal reentry into the United States after being removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony. On appeal, defendant raised several procedural challenges to the sentence. The court held that the sentencing court committed no procedural error because the Guidelines did not expressly prohibit the triple counting of defendant's prior record; the court did not impermissibly count defendant's extensive criminal record when it imposed the upward variance justified under the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors; the district court's upward departures were not procedurally defective; and the 240 month sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Rivera-Santana" on Justia Law

Named Claimants filed "class proofs of claims" in these consolidated bankruptcy cases in which Circuit City and related entities are the debtors. Named Claimants alleged that they, together with unnamed claimants, were owed almost $150 million in unpaid overtime wages. The court affirmed the decisions of the bankruptcy court with a different procedural approach for allowing claimants to file class proofs of claim and to present Rule 9014 motions. With respect to the bankruptcy court's ruling that in the circumstances of this case, the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees, the court concluded that the court's ruling fell within its discretion. With respect to these Named Claimants' challenge to notice, the court concluded that the notice to them was not constitutionally deficient - a conclusion with which they agreed - and that, with respect to unnamed claimants, the Named Claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice. View "Gentry v. Circuit City Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff's application for naturalization was denied by USCIS when USCIS determined that plaintiff's 2002 conviction in the District of Columbia Superior Court for distribution of cocaine in a drug-free zone qualified as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101, which prevented plaintiff from establishing his good moral character and thus obtaining citizenship. Plaintiff contended that because his 2002 conviction was set aside under D.C. law, it had no operative effect and USCIS should not have considered it. The court held that plaintiff's conviction remained unchanged for immigration purposes despite the fact that the conviction was set aside on rehabilitative grounds. Because plaintiff's conviction was an absolute bar on obtaining citizenship, his naturalization application was properly denied. View "Phan v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Appellants, Mark McBurney and Roger Hurlbert, appealed the district court's award of summary judgment to appellees where the district court held that Virginia's Freedom of Information Act, Va. Code Ann. 2.2-3700 et seq. (VFOIA), did not violate appellants' rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause or Hurlbert's rights under the Dormant Commerce Clause. The court concluded that VFOIA did not infringe on any of appellants' fundamental rights or privileges under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The court also held that Hurlbert waived his claim under the Dormant Commerce Clause because he failed to raise any challenge in his opening brief. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "McBurney, et al. v. Young, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order granting summary judgment to the United States on her claim seeking money damages for alleged violations of the Privacy Protection Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000aa. Plaintiff, a photojournalist who claimed a special interest in covering protests, political demonstrations, and grassroots activism, was identified on a security camera as being present during a protest demonstration during the International Monetary Funds' annual spring meeting. Police officers executed a search warrant, believing it likely that plaintiff's residence contained evidence of suspected criminal activity that occurred during the protest. Plaintiff was never arrested or charged with any crimes relating to the incident. Plaintiff subsequently brought an action against the United States under the PPA and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States. The court agreed with the district court that there was probable cause to believe plaintiff conspired with a group of vandals or aided and abetted the offenses committed by the group. Accordingly, the court concluded that the United States was entitled to summary judgment based on the "suspect exception" to the PPA and affirmed the judgment. View "Sennett v. United States, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of El Salvador who had been granted LPR status, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision to dismiss his appeal from an IJ's decision classifying him as an alien subject to removal under section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). The order of removal was based upon the IJ's determination that petitioner previously had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Because the court concluded that the moral turpitude provision of the INA was not ambiguous and did not contain any gap requiring agency clarification, the court held that the procedural framework established in Matter of Silva-Trevino was not an authorized exercise of the Attorney General's authority. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and vacated the BIA's decision and the order providing for petitioner's removal. View "Prudencio v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was hired as a medical technologist on December 24, 2007. On May 6, 2008, plaintiff and others met with the chief operating officer to discuss plaintiff's belief that her supervisor willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by altering time sheets to eliminate overtime. Plaintiff's employment was terminated on May 12. Plaintiff filed a complaint, alleging retaliation for engaging in protected activity (FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3)). The district court dismissed, finding that an employee's complaint lodged within her company, as opposed to with a court or government agency, does not trigger the protection of the FLSA antiretaliation provision. The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that intracompany complaints may constitute protected activity. View "Minor v. Bostwick Lab., Inc." on Justia Law

An officer in the backseat of a marked car claims that he observed a car with a cracked windshield. The officers followed and pulled the car over. They observed defendant, a passenger in the rear, moving around in his seat and trying to climb over the front seats, despite commands to stop. During a pat-down, the officer felt a gun and yelled "gun." Defendant then struck an officer in the face with his elbow and turned to flee. Another officer clearly observed a silver firearm with a black handle in defendant's waistband. Defendant then punched an officer. They placed him under arrest and seized a .380 semi-automatic pistol. He was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court suppressed the evidence of the gun. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that defendant's subsequent illegal acts did not purge the taint of the illegal stop. The gun was discovered as a result of the stop, not as a result of that conduct. View "United States v. Gaine" on Justia Law

Ghana-born Petitioner James Turkson asked an immigration judge (IJ) to defer his removal from the United States because he believed that he would be tortured if returned to his native Ghana. The IJ ruled that Petitioner would likely face torture in Ghana, and therefore deferred his removal. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed the IJ's ruling. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals reviewed all aspects of the IJ's decision, but erred in its review of the IJ's factual findings: the BIA reviewed the case under the de novo standard of review instead of under the "clearly erroneous standard" prescribed by its governing regulations. The Fourth Circuit therefore granted Petitioner's petition for review, vacated the BIA's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Turkson v. Holder" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from an unsuccessful Title VII action brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Great Steaks, Inc. The EEOC accused Great Steaks of subjecting female employees to a sexually hostile work environment. Although at the start of the case the EEOC asserted its claim on behalf of multiple claimants, that number diminished to one by trial. After a three-day trial, the jury rendered a verdict in Great Steaks' favor. Great Steaks subsequently moved for an award of attorneys' fees, maintaining it was entitled to such an award under three statutory provisions. The district court denied the motion for attorneys' fees in its entirety. On appeal, Great Steaks contended that the district court erred in doing so. Upon review of Great Steaks' claims of error and the laws it cited as grounds for relief, the Fourth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision. The Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "EEOC v. Great Steaks, Inc." on Justia Law