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

The government appealed from the judgment of the district court dismissing its action to civilly commit respondent as a "sexually dangerous person" under 18 U.S.C. 4248. The district court held that the statute as applied to respondent violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution and respondent cross-appealed. The court reversed the district court's judgment dismissing the government's commitment action; the district court did not err in concluding that section 4248 was a civil statute and thus was not subject to the various constitutional safeguards placed on criminal proceedings; nor did it err in relying on this court's precedent that section 4248's requirement that proof of past conduct by "clear and convincing evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt" was appropriate; and circuit precedent also foreclosed respondent's argument that section 4248 could not be invoked because his criminal sentence included post-incarceration supervised release. However, the district court erred in finding that, as applied to respondent, section 4248 deprived him of equal protection and due process of law. The case was remanded for the district court to determine on the merits whether respondent met the section 4248 criteria. View "United States v. Timm" on Justia Law

This case arose out of the federal government's initiation of civil commitment proceedings against respondent via a certification that he was a "sexually dangerous person" under 18 U.S.C. 4248, enacted as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Act). Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that the government had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent was sexually dangerous under the Act. The court held that the district court's application of the statutory standards to the evidence was not erroneous and its factual findings represented a permissible and reasonable interpretation of the evidence presented at the hearing. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that respondent was not sexually dangerous within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order dismissing the government's commitment action. View "United States v. Hall" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's denial of her application for supplemental security income (SSI). The court found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 301 et seq. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Commissioner. View "Hancock v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of one count of violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibited a person who was subject to a domestic violence protection order issued under certain specified circumstances from, inter alia, possessing a firearm or ammunition in or affecting interstate commerce. The court concluded that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate standard of scrutiny for defendant and similarly situated persons. The court held that section 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and (C)(ii), as applied to defendant, satisfied the intermediate scrutiny standard in analyzing his Second Amendment challenge to such a statute where the government had carried its burden of establishing a reasonable fit between the substantial government objective of reducing domestic gun violence and keeping firearms out of the hands of persons who were currently subject to court order. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Chapman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized in the course of a police search of his person. The police search included an officer's use of a knife to cut a sandwich bag containing suspected narcotics off defendant's penis, an act performed at night on a public street. The court concluded that the manner in which the search was conducted was unreasonable and, therefore, that the district court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress. Accordingly, defendant's conviction was vacated and the case remanded. View "United States v. Edward" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of producing a false identification document that appeared to be issued by or under the authority of the United States government in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(1). Defendant subsequently appealed. The court concluded that: (1) as applied to defendant, section 1028(a)(1) was not unconstitutionally vague; (2) the district court properly instructed the jury to use a "reasonable person standard" to determine whether defendant's ID "appeared to be" government-issued; (3) the Government produced sufficient evidence that defendant produced the ID, and that venue was proper, such that the district court properly denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; and (4) it was not necessary to charge defendant with "aiding and abetting" in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2(b). Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Jaensch" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a contract entered into by Iraq's Ministry of Defense (IMOD) and Wye Oak for the refurbishment and disposal of Iraqi military equipment. At issue was whether, for purposes of analyzing subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602-11, a foreign state and its armed forces were separate legal persons. The court concluded that, for jurisdictional purposes, they were not. Therefore, the court held that Wye Oak's claim against Iraq alleging breach of contract entered into by IMOD fell within the FSIA's commercial activities exception. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Iraq's motion to dismiss Wye Oak's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Wye Oak Technology, Inc. v. Republic of Iraq" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against her former employer, alleging that the employer violated Maryland law when at the time of her termination, it failed to pay her for unvested shares earned through the employer's long-term profit sharing plan. The district court granted the employer's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court affirmed the district court's holding that New Jersey law applied to the contract because the Maryland statute was not a fundamental public policy of Maryland and that the unvested shares were not wages under New Jersey law. Even if Maryland law applied, the unvested shares were not wages under the Maryland statute and thus were never owed to plaintiff. View "Kunda v. C.R. Bard, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant, a former shareholder in Wachovia, sought to recover personally for the decline in value of his shares of Wachovia stock during the recent financial crisis. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that appellant's complaint stated a claim derivative of injury to the corporation and that he was therefore barred from bringing a direct or individual cause of action against defendants. The court held that because appellant's varied attempts to recast his derivative claim as individual were unavailing, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Rivers, Jr. v. Wachovia Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Defendants, Nancy Bell and her daughter, pled guilty without a plea agreement to several counts arising out of a conspiracy to distribute oxycodone pills. On appeal, defendants challenged the drug quantities from which the district court calculated their base offense levels under the Sentencing Guidelines, primarily because (1) Bell obtained the pills with a valid prescription and consumed some of the pills herself, and (2) the evidence of actual drug trafficking consisted of co-conspirator testimony of uncertain reliability. The court held that because the district court failed to explain adequately its methodology for calculating drug quantity and otherwise made findings sufficient to permit appellate review of defendants' sentences for procedural reasonableness, the court vacated the judgments and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Bell; United States v. Gibson" on Justia Law