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

Defendant pled guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to 90 months' imprisonment. At issue was whether the district court erred in sentencing defendant when it applied a two-level enhancement "if any person was physically restrained to facilitate the commission of the offense or to facilitate escape" under U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(4)(B). The court held that the district court properly applied the enhancement where the two bank tellers ordered to the floor at gunpoint were prevented from both leaving the bank and thwarting the bank robbery.

Defendant was convicted of several offenses related to the sale of cocaine base to a government informant (Jackson) and subsequent efforts to have Jackson murdered. Defendant raised several issues on appeal. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal with respect to the conspiracy to distribute and possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute count and concluded that the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had a continuous buy-sell relationship with Maryland suppliers to bring their drugs to market in Virginia. The court also concluded that the district court did not err when it denied defendant a jury instruction on entrapment where a fellow inmate (Johnson) was not a government informant at the time that the discussion about doing away with Jackson began and there was ample evidence in the record from which a jury could find that defendant was predisposed to prevent Jackson from testifying. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal as to solicitation to commit murder for hire where the record showed that defendant clearly wrote to his many girlfriends seeking help in his murder for hire scheme. The court further concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict him of being a felon in possession of a firearm and the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a separate trial on this count. The court finally concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's Motion for Change of Counsel and the district court did not abuse its discretion by improperly considering his prior felony conviction when calculating his sentence. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit securities registration violations, securities fraud, and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, and nine counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343. Defendant raised several issues on appeal. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling on defendant's motion in limine and when regulating the testimony of two expert witnesses during trial. Because the relevant legal regimes were complex, it assisted the jury to have them explained. The court also concluded that the district court acted well within its broad discretion in admitting lay opinion testimony of two co-conspirators under Rule 701. Defendant's challenges to two other rulings by the district court made during trial did not merit extensive discussion and were rejected. The court further concluded that defendant's sentence was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence.

Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of knowingly possessing three firearms following a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), pursuant to a plea agreement that reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss. At issue was whether defendant's conviction under section 922(g)(9) survived his as-applied constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment. The court held that 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 have been convicted of a domestic violence crime and persons who have threatened the use of a deadly weapon. Accordingly, the court held that, on defendant's as-applied challenge under the Second Amendment, section 922(g)(9) satisfied the intermediate scrutiny standard and the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of having used and carried a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence recovered in search of his residence and statements he made to the police. The court concluded that the district court properly found that the search warrant was issued based on probable cause supplied by an officer's warrant affidavit. The court also concluded that the officers' traffic stop and detention of defendant did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the court rejected defendant's remaining Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision to affirm the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner asserted that the BIA erred in making an adverse credibility determination and, even if it did not so err, independent evidence existed to establish past persecution. The court upheld the adverse credibility determination as supported by substantial evidence and agreed with the BIA that petitioner failed to provide sufficient independent evidence establishing past persecution. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

Plaintiff applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and an ALJ denied the claim, noting that plaintiff failed to provide an opinion from his treating physician. When plaintiff requested review of his claim by the Appeals Council, he submitted a letter from his treating physician detailing the injuries and recommending significant restrictions on plaintiff's activity. The Appeals Council made this letter part of the record but denied plaintiff's request for review. Thus, the ALJ's decision denying benefits became the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Plaintiff appealed, contending that the Appeals Council erred by failing to articulate specific findings justifying its denial of his request for review. The court rejected the argument and held that the Appeals Council need not explain its reasoning when denying review of an ALJ decision. But because in this case the court could not determine if substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits, the court reversed and remanded.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Republic of China, petitioned for review of an order of the BIA, which upheld the denial of petitioner's application for adjustment of status and dismissed her appeal from the IJ's decision, finding that the IJ failed to provide petitioner "with the required advisals." The BIA remanded petitioner's case to the IJ in order for the IJ to grant a new period of voluntary departure and to provide the required advisals. Petitioner timely appealed. The government urged the court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction, but nonetheless declined to exercise that jurisdiction for prudential reasons, following the approach employed by the First and Sixth Circuits in similar circumstances. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition without prejudice to petitioner's right to seek review at a later time.

The former trustees of the Plasterers' Local Union No. 96 Pension Plan appealed from the judgment of the district court in favor of the current trustees of the Plan. The district court's judgment was based on its finding that the former trustees breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., regarding the investment Plan assets set forth under 29 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1)(B) and (C). On appeal, the former trustees challenged the district court's determination as to liability, its method of calculating damages, and the award of attorney fees. The court concluded that the district court erred as to each of these issues and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This case stemmed from debtors' voluntary petition for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. When the Chapter 13 trustee moved to dismiss the case or to convert it to a Chapter 7 case, debtors filed a motion to convert their case to a Chapter 7 case, which the bankruptcy court granted. Thereafter, the U.S. Trustee filed a motion to dismiss the Chapter 7 case. At issue was whether an order denying the U.S. Trustee's motion to dismiss a debtor's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case as abusive under 11 U.S.C. 707(b) was a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. 158(a). The district court dismissed the trustee's appeal, ruling that the bankruptcy court's order was interlocutory and therefore not appealable to the district court. The court held that because of the particular effect that an order denying a motion to dismiss a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case as abusive had on the bankruptcy proceedings, a bankruptcy court's order denying such a motion was appealable to the district court. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order dismissing the trustee's appeal and remanded for further proceedings.