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

Defendant, an inmate at Hazelton, appealed his convictions and sentence for two counts of assaulting a correctional officer. On appeal, defendant raised several challenges. The court held that neither of the asserted indictment errors were grounds for reversal; the district court did not improperly sustain hearsay objections to defendant's testimony; and having concluded that defendant was properly convicted under 18 U.S.C. 111(b), the court also concluded that he was properly sentenced under U.S.S.G. 2A2.2. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted as a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and subsequently moved to dismiss on the grounds that the statute violated his Second Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion and defendant entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to raise the Second Amendment defense on appeal. As part of defendant's sentence on the section 922(g)(1) conviction, the district court ordered that he repay the incurred court-appointed attorneys' fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006A(f). The court held that section 922(g)(1) was constitutional as applied to defendant and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss. The court held, however, that because the district court did not comply with the statutory mandate here, the court vacated that portion of the district court's judgment requiring defendant to repay his court-appointed attorneys' fees and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's holding that her common law tort claims against Medtronic were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA), as interpreted by Riegel v. Medtronic. On appeal, plaintiff argued that because the device in question allegedly failed to operate in accordance with the terms of its premarket approval, her claims paralleled federal requirements and therefore should avoid preemption. Because the medical pump at issue was undisputedly designed, manufactured, and distributed in compliance with its FDA premarket approval, and plaintiff's common law claims exceeded or differed from, rather than paralleled, federal requirements, the court held that each of her specific claims for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty were preempted. View "Walker v. Medtronic, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, the CEO of Maryland's Prince George's County Public Schools (PGCS), was convicted of several counts of honest-services fraud, tampering with evidence, and obstruction of justice. Defendant's convictions involved securing two public contracts for school products and services. On appeal, defendant raised several claims of error. The court held that, in light of the evidence and the general verdict, it could not conclude that the erroneous jury instruction at issue was harmless. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant's convictions of honest-services fraud (counts 6, 7, and 10). The court addressed each of defendant's challenges to his tampering and obstruction convictions, affirming convictions of evidence and witness tampering (counts 19 and 20) and obstruction of justice (count 22). The court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing on counts 19, 20, and 22. View "United States v. Hornsby" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, presently incarcerated due to his conviction after trial for federal crimes of terrorism, and his mother, sued for legal and equitable relief based on plaintiff's prior military detention as an "enemy combatant." Plaintiff sought a declaration that defendants' policies were unconstitutional, an order enjoining his future designation as an enemy combatant, and nominal damages of one dollar from each defendant. The court affirmed the district court's refusal to imply a new cause of action for money damages against top Defense Department officials for a range of policy judgments pertaining to the designation and treatment of enemy combatants. The court also held that defendants have asserted a valid qualified immunity defense to defendant's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., claim. The court further held that the district court did not err in concluding that defendant lacked standing to seek an order enjoining the government from designating him as an enemy combatant. Therefore, finding plaintiff's claims to be without merit, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lebron, et al. v. Rumsfeld, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for attempted enticement, receipt of child pornography, and possession of child pornography. At issue was whether the district court properly applied two five-level enhancements and whether defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. The court held that for purposes of the U.S.S.G. 2G2.2 enhancement, the term "minor" could include an unidentified individual, provided that evidence showed the individual would be under 18 years of age. Accordingly, defendant's failure to identify a specific child at the outset did not diminish his danger to children or his first-hand involvement in the exploitation of the minor. Because the district court followed the reasoning of the Eighth Circuit regarding an issue on which the court had not ruled directly, - i.e., whether a district court could appropriately apply a five-level enhancement for sharing files through a PSP network - it did not commit plain error. Therefore, the court declined to reverse the application of the enhancement. The court further held that the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered and properly weighed all relevant factors in determining defendant's sentence, the sentence was within the Guidelines range, and in light of the fact that defendant possessed particularly violent pornographic materials of very young children combined with the direct threat he posed. View "United States v. Strieper" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of marijuana, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3). At issue was whether defendant's section 922(g)(3) conviction violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Although the court concluded, by applying the intermediate scrutiny standard, that Congress had an important objective for enacting section 922(g)(3) to reduce gun violence and might have reasonably served that objective by disarming drug users and addicts, the court nonetheless found that the government failed to make the record to substantiate the fit between its objectives and the means of serving that objective. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a racial discrimination action under Title VII in a North Carolina state court, naming the Secretary as a defendant. The Secretary removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a) and then filed a motion to dismiss. The court concluded that because the United States and the Secretary did not consent to be sued in a North Carolina state court under Title VII, the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Inasmuch as removal to the federal court, under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction, did not cure that jurisdictional defect, the court affirmed the district court's order. View "Bullock v. Napolitano" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on the charge of possessing a firearm while being a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Defendant, an African American, moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that the U.S. Attorney's Office selected him for prosecution under a federal-state law enforcement initiative known as Project Exile because of his race, in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. On appeal, defendant requested that the court reverse the district court's order denying his motion for discovery and remand the case for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. The court held that defendant failed to make a credible showing that a similarly situated defendant of another race had evaded prosecution under Project Exile in order to obtain discovery on his selective prosecution claim and that defendant had failed to carry his burden of producing some evidence to make a credible showing of both discriminatory effect and intent. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Venable" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of nine criminal counts related to his membership in the gang Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). Defendant appealed, among other things, his convictions under 18 U.S.C. 1512(a)(1)(C) for aiding and abetting witness-tampering murder. The court held that, although the district court based its section 1512(a)(1)(C) jury instructions on the court's decision in United States v. Harris which - while this appeal was pending - was abrogated by the Supreme Court's decision in Fowler v. United States, the court concluded that the error in instructing the jury was harmless. Finding no error in regards to defendant's remaining claims, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Ramos-Cruz" on Justia Law