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

On behalf of a class, Plaintiff sued Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting for investment advice given to Lowe’s Home Improvement to help manage its employees’ retirement plans. Aon, first as an investment consultant and later as a delegated fiduciary, owed the plan fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Plaintiff claimed that Aon’s conduct violated the core duties of loyalty and prudence. After a five-day bench trial, the district court held that Aon, in fact, did not breach its fiduciary duties. Plaintiff appealed.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court that Aon’s recommendation was not motivated by self-interest. And Plaintiff’s contention that Aon’s research conducted before it was Lowe’s delegated fiduciary could not discharge its duty of prudence also falls short. Aon engaged in a reasoned decision-making process by reviewing comparable funds. It makes no difference here that the review occurred when it established the fund (which was before Aon became Lowe’s delegated fiduciary). Plus, it continued to monitor the fund. So Aon did not violate the duty of prudence. View "Benjamin Reetz v. Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed that because of circumstances beyond his control, he did not receive notice of the district court’s judgment for over 90 days after it was entered, and he filed a notice of appeal shortly after he did receive notice. In response, the Fourth Circuit found his notice of appeal untimely, but the court construed the notice as a timely motion to reopen the appeal period pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), which implements an exception found in 28 U.S.C. Section 2107(c), and remanded the case to the district court. The district court then entered an order under Rule 4(a)(6), reopening the time for noticing an appeal for 14 days from the date of its order. Plaintiff, however, failed to file a notice of appeal within the window so provided.   The Fourth Circuit dismissed his appeal. The court explained that Section 2107(c) of Title 28, which is the statute prescribing the timing requirements for filing appeals in civil actions, provides that a would-be appellant who does not receive timely notice of a judgment and thereafter fails to file a timely notice of appeal may nonetheless request — not more than 180 days after the judgment is entered — that the district court exercise its discretion to reopen the time for appeal by providing a new 14-day window within which to file a notice of appeal. Compliance with this narrow supplemental opportunity for filing a timely notice of appeal is especially significant because the times specified by statute for filing appeals in civil actions are jurisdictional. View "Donte Parrish v. US" on Justia Law

An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, and Petitioner petitioned for review.
The Fourth Circuit granted in part, denied in part, and remanded. The BIA properly held that Petitioner was not eligible for CAT protection, and so the court denied the petition for review as to the CAT claim. But the BIA erred in not recognizing the nexus that Petitioner established between the persecution she suffered and her religion. As a result of that error, the BIA erred in determining that Petitioner was not a refugee eligible for asylum. The court explained that when Petitioner left the country 12 days after her initial police report, Petitioner had not been harmed, and she did not offer any evidence that the police colluded with MS-13 or otherwise acquiesced in the gang’s activity. With no such evidence, a reasonable adjudicator could find that there was no government acquiescence in her persecution. View "Odalis Chicas-Machado v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner and her minor son were ordered removed in absentia. The immigration judge denied their motion to reopen the removal proceedings, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed their appeal. The BIA concluded that Petitioner had “not rebutted the slight presumption of delivery and receipt of the hearing notice at the address she provided.” Petitioner petitioned for review.   The Fourth Circuit granted the petition and vacated the dismissal by the BIA. The court explained that the statutory scheme contemplates a notice to appear that fully complies with the requirements of Section 1229(a)(1). The Supreme Court has emphasized that this notice must be a “single statutorily compliant document.” That is because the original notice to appear, by itself and regardless of any future need for a change in hearing, is a critical document, “the basis for commencing a grave legal proceeding” with profound implications for people like Petitioner and her son. If the government holds the original removal hearing as envisioned by the satisfactory notice to appear, there is no need for further notices. Of course, “if logistics require a change,” the government has statutory flexibility to send a change of hearing notice. But that flexibility does not excuse the government from its obligations to provide a valid notice to appear in the first instance. That did not happen here. Nor did Petitioner receive proper notice under Section 1229(a)(2). The court concluded that because she did not receive the “written notice required under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a),” Petitioner is entitled to the reopening of her proceedings and the rescission of her removal order. View "Azucena Lazo-Gavidia v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

This dispute involves several insurers and one defendant insurer’s alleged duty to defend a lawsuit brought against a general contractor of a residential building project. The district court entered partial summary judgment, holding that the defendant insurer had a duty to defend the general contractor in the underlying action for construction defects. The court also issued a stay of other issues raised by the parties, and administratively closed the case. After the defendant insurer filed the present appeal, the underlying action was resolved in a settlement agreement.   The Fourth Circuit concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the present interlocutory appeal challenging the defendant insurer’s duty to defend the general contractor. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal. The court explained that while the relief granted in the district court’s order originally may have been prospective in nature, the resolution of the underlying action has eliminated from that order any forward-looking mandate. Thus, the court explained that the order before the court in this appeal currently lacks the character of an injunction and does not require the court to consider any question separate from issues that may be appealed after entry of a final judgment in the district court. View "Westfield Insurance Company v. Selective Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has twice traveled unlawfully into the United States — first in 2012, and again in 2016. In both instances, Petitioner fled threats to his life, and attacks were carried out against him by the 18th Street Gang and the Salvadoran police. After seeking protection from removal before an immigration judge (the “IJ”) in 2016, Petitioner was afforded relief — in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (the “CAT”) — by three separate IJ rulings. On each occasion, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) reversed the IJ rulings. Petitioner, for his part, was removed to El Salvador in May 2022 and has awaited further developments in these proceedings from his home country. In this appeal, Petitioner challenged and sought reversal of three rulings made by the BIA.   The Fourth Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for review and reverse the BIA rulings in part, affirm them in part, and vacate them in part. The court otherwise remanded to the BIA for such further proceedings. The court explained that the BIA declined to “interact seriously” with the record before it in reviewing Petitioner’s claim for CAT protection, and its failure in that regard requires a remand. Petitioner’s evidence, to be certain, is strongly supportive of his CAT claim — he has, after all, already been subjected to “cruel and inhuman treatment” after being initially removed to El Salvador. But the court declined to resolve whether Petitioner is entitled to CAT protection. Instead, the court vacated the BIA’s 2021 Reversal Order with respect to its CAT ruling and remanded for the BIA to fully and properly assess Petitioner’s CAT claim in the first instance. View "Christian Santos Garcia v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied his application, explaining that while he had left El Salvador because of a genuine fear of gangs, neither he nor his family had had any encounters with gang members. Because the basis for his fear was simply a “generalized” fear of criminal gang members and violence in El Salvador, the IJ found that he was ineligible for relief.On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), Petitioner argued that he had proceeded pro se before the IJ and that the IJ had failed to develop the record, as required by Quintero v. Garland, 998 F.3d 612, 622 (4th Cir. 2021). The BIA concluded, however, that the IJ had fulfilled the requirements of Quintero and affirmed.The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that the BIA's conclusions were not legally erroneous or lacked evidentiary support. View "Jose Trejo Tepas v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner is an alien who challenges Exxon Mobil Corporation’s hiring policy as discriminatory. Petitioner received deferred deportation and eligibility for temporary work authorization under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program. While a student at North Carolina State University, Petitioner was recruited by ExxonMobil for an internship. Petitioner told ExxonMobil that he is not a United States citizen, but erroneously represented that he had permanent work authorization under federal law. Petitioner was hired on this basis. However, when he presented his paperwork, it showed he lacked permanent work authorization, and ExxonMobil rescinded its offer.Petitioner claims that ExxonMobil’s policy discriminates against aliens as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981. ExxonMobil filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted.The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Section 1981 only protects against intentional discrimination, and Petitioner failed to allege that ExxonMobil intentionally discriminates against aliens. While ExxonMobil’s policy requiring that applicants have permanent work authorization will only exclude aliens, discriminatory impact is not enough. And, given ExxonMobil’s policy, Petitioner did not plausibly allege that ExxonMobil intended to discriminate against aliens. View "Aldo De Leon Resendiz v. Exxon Mobil Corporation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a package delivery driver for United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), injured his hip and buttocks. He requested he be allowed to drive his route with a smaller truck that would have a softer suspension or, alternatively, that he be assigned to an “inside job.” However, UPS determined that Plaintiff's route required a larger truck and there were no openings for inside work; thus, UPS offered Plaintiff an unpaid leave of absence until he could return to work.Plaintiff filed a claim, asserting that UPS’s refusal to provide him with the accommodations he requested violated his rights under the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment to UPS, concluding, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff had not shown that the accommodations he requested were reasonable and that his unpaid leave of absence constituted a reasonable accommodation in the circumstances.The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding Plaintiff failed to establish that UPS needed to allow him to drive a smaller vehicle on his existing route and that the leave of absence was not a reasonable alternative. View "Jay Hannah v. UPS" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered against him in August 2020. Two years earlier, in August 2018, Defendant was indicted in that court for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and oxycodone, (the “distribution offense”), plus possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, (the “firearm offense”). In December 2018, a jury convicted Defendant on both those offenses. During the sentencing proceedings, the court found Defendant to be a “career offender” under Sentencing Guidelines section 4B1.1(a), in that Defendant had seven prior South Carolina felony convictions supportive of such an enhancement (including, four South Carolina felony convictions for distribution of cocaine base). The court then sentenced Defendant to 120 months in prison for the distribution offense — plus 60 consecutive months for the firearm offense — for an aggregate prison term totaling 180 months. On appeal, Defendant pursued four challenges to his convictions and sentence.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that he “distribution” offense of South Carolina Code section 44- 53-375(B) does not criminalize the attempt offense of “attempted distribution,” but rather the completed offense of “attempted transfer.” Accordingly, the court ruled today that a section 44-53-375(B) distribution offense is not categorically disqualified from being treated as a Guidelines “controlled substance offense.” As a result of that ruling, Defendant’s contention that four of his prior drug distribution convictions — as punished by section 44-53-375(B) of the South Carolina Code — is without merit. The district court thus did not err by deeming Defendant to be a Guidelines career offender. View "US v. Quintin Davis" on Justia Law