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

Defendant pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Defendant subsequently challenged the district court's jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e) to impose a second prison sentence for violations of his supervised release after the district court effectively revoked his supervised release and imposed a prison sentence in a prior hearing. The court affirmed and held that the district court had jurisdiction to hold the September 17 violation hearing and to impose the 12 month sentence for supervised-release violations arising from defendant's state convictions. View "United States v. Winfield" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's decision to abstain, on the basis of Schlesinger v. Councilman, and dismiss without prejudice his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the U.S. Army's exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over him. The court held that the district court was well within its discretion in applying Councilman abstention and dismissing without prejudice petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court remanded, however, for correction of an error in the judgment because, although the district court applied Councilman abstention and dismissed the petition without prejudice, the judgment erroneously indicated that the district court granted the Army's summary judgment motion on the merits. View "Hennis v. Hemlick, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of its civil action brought against defendants for alleged Fourth Amendment violations in conjunction with warrantless searches of plaintiff's mining facility. From December 2007 to June 2008, defendants conducted approximately 25 warrantless inspections of plaintiff's mining operation after receiving anonymous tips that the mine was not in compliance with Virginia regulations. The court held that Virginia's Mineral Mine Safety Act, Va. Code Ann. 45.1-161.292:54(B), was constitutional under the New York v. Burger test; there was no Fourth Amendment violation where the searches were objectively supported by multiple complaints to which the inspectors were responding and there was no indication that the inspections were pretext for harassment or other improper conduct; Virginia Code 19.2-59 must be interpreted not to apply to the type of searches at issue here; and having found no constitutional violation, the court concluded that defendants were protected by qualified immunity. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "LeSueur-Richmond Slate Corp. v. Fehrer" on Justia Law

Defendants, husband and wife, appealed their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and dispense, and to possess with intent to distribute and dispense, methamphetamine. On appeal, defendants contended that the protective sweep of their residence was unconstitutional and husband contended, separately, that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable. The court held that the articulable facts, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts made by law officers, and construed in the light most favorable to the government, were more than sufficient to justify the protective sweep. The court held, however, that husband's prior North Carolina conviction was not a predicate offense and therefore, did not qualify as a prior felony conviction for purposes of the career offender provision. Accordingly, the court vacated husband's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States. v. Jones; United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The court held that the BIA's conclusion that petitioner's proposed social group of young Honduran males who refuse to join MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha gang), have notified the police of MS-13's harassment tactics, and have an identifiable tormentor within the gang did not qualify as a particular social group was not manifestly contrary to the law or an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review with respect to the asylum and withholding of removal claims. However, the court granted the petition for review with respect to petitioner's CAT claim, vacating the BIA's final order, and remanding for further proceedings for additional investigation and explanation as the court had outlined. View "Zelaya v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff initiated this proceeding in the district court alleging that the Board violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., by failing to reasonably accommodate her hearing disability. Plaintiff's complaint sought back pay, future pay, compensatory damages of $1,000,000, punitive damages of $1,000,000, plus attorney's fees and costs. The Board subsequently appealed the district court's partial rejection of the Board's assertion of immunity. The court held that the district court properly adhered to the Bd. of Educ. of Balt. Cnty. v. Zimmer-Rubert decision in ruling that the immunity provision effected a waiver of the Board's Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims of $100,000 or less. View "Lee-Thomas v. Prince George's County Public Sch." on Justia Law

Plaintiff commenced this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., claiming that the administrator of the Principal Life policies had misconstrued the policies in calculating his predisability earnings and that, with a proper calculation, his predisability earnings were far greater. The district court, ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, entered judgment in favor of Principal Life. The court affirmed. Even though the court recognized that the policy language, defining those expenses that could be subtracted from gross income to arrive at predisability earnings, was somewhat confusing and, to be sure, needlessly verbose, the court concluded that the administrator's interpretation was a reasonable one. View "Fortier v. Principal Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendants, a law firm and its attorney, alleging that they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.c. 1692 et seq. At issue was whether defendants' Rule 68 offer of judgment mooted plaintiff's case. Also at issue was whether the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The court held that defendants' first offer, a payment of $250 in actual damages, and defendants' second offer, conditioning the amount of actual damages on the district court's determination, did not moot plaintiff's case. The court also held that the district court erred in concluding that plaintiff's amended complaint failed to allege violations of 15 U.S.C. 1692c(a)(2), and 1692e(11). Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A." on Justia Law

This case arose when Union entered into a limited job-preference agreement with Peabody Coal where the agreement included an arbitration clause. The district court subsequently entered judgment in favor of Union, ruling that the arbitrator properly determined the arbitrability of the dispute. In the alternative, the district court concluded that the dispute was arbitrable, even if the arbitrator lacked authority to decide the arbitrability question. Peabody Coal appealed. The court held, as an initial matter, that the court, not the arbitrator must decide whether the dispute was arbitrable. The parties' agreement lacked the requisite "clear and unmistakable" language evincing an intent to arbitrate arbitrability. Exercising the court's independent judgment on the arbitrability question, the court concluded that Peabody Coal had not rebutted the ordinary presumption in favor of arbitrability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and the parties must proceed to arbitration. View "Peabody Holding Co. v. United Mine Workers of America" on Justia Law

After the negligence of government doctors in California caused significant and irreversible brain damage to J.C., his parents brought a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2674, suit against the United States. This case returned to the court after remand to the district court. On remand, the district court held that it could not provide the government with a reversionary interest in the future care award that "would comply with" both the FTCA and California law. The United States appealed. Because granting the government a reversionary interest in J.C.'s future care award eliminated the potential for a windfall without in any way rendering the award less sufficient compensation for J.C., the court found such a remedy approximated Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 667.7 in a manner that was consistent with the FTCA. Accordingly, the court remanded the case with instructions for the district court to fashion such a remedy. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Cibula, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law