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

Defendant was originally charged with four federal offenses: (1) carjacking; (2) kidnapping; (3) using a firearm during a crime of violence; and (4) possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony. The parties agreed Defendant would plead guilty to the kidnapping and Section 924(c) charges, and the government would dismiss the carjacking and felon in possession charges. Neither the indictment nor the plea agreement specified a predicate “crime of violence” for the Section 924(c) charge, and the plea agreement contained no agreed-upon factual statement. Defendant filed a pro se motion to vacate his Section 924(c) conviction based on intervening authority. The district court denied Defendant’s motion. The court acknowledged it is now clear “kidnapping is not a Section 924(c) predicate offense.” But the court concluded Defendant’s Section 924(c) conviction remained valid because.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to vacate his firearm conviction and remanded him for resentencing. The court explained that the categorical approach does not deny the district court its ultimate discretion, nor does it deprive the facts of their force. Even if a statutory enhancement under Section 924(c) does not apply because of the categorical approach, as is the case here, judges may, at their discretion, calculate a guidelines range or grant upward variances based on the violent nature of the criminal activity. Even if the categorical approach renders violent predicates legally invalid, district courts are at liberty to sentence the violent character of the cases that come before them. View "US v. Elliott Graham" on Justia Law

After pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, Defendant was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, an enhanced penalty that represents the mandatory minimum sentence required for such a violation when the provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) are satisfied. ACCA provides that when a defendant violates Section 922(g) and has “three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense . . . committed on occasions different from one another,” he shall be given the enhanced sentence. Defendant’s indictment did not allege the facts supporting the ACCA enhancement; instead, the district court found them as part of the sentencing procedure. Defendant maintained that, in light of Supreme Court cases and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, ACCA’s requirement that the defendant has committed the prior offenses on different occasions must be alleged in the indictment and found by a jury or admitted by the defendant in his guilty plea because that fact increases the penalty for his crime.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the ACCA enhancement remains a matter for sentencing. Under Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), the facts that support a recidivism enhancement are resolved by the district court during sentencing, and ACCA provides just such a recidivism enhancement, as the court recognized in Thompson. Despite Defendant’s arguments to the contrary, the court concluded that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Descamps, Mathis, and Wooden have not narrowed or overruled Almendarez-Torres. And if they have done so by implication, the Supreme Court must say so, not a court of appeals. View "US v. Rico Brown" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Moses Enterprises, LLC, sells cars. Moses had an insurance policy issued by defendant Lexington Insurance Company, with Defendant AIG Claims, Inc. serving as the claims administrator. Moses sued Lexington and AIG in federal district court. The complaint made four claims under West Virginia law, including—as relevant here—one for breach of the insurance contract and one for violating the State’s unfair trade practices statute. The district court granted partial summary judgment for Moses on the breach of contract claim but resolved only liability—not damages.   The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded. The court explained that the district court’s later grant of partial summary judgment also did not obviate the need for further work to “obtain payment of the insurance proceeds.” However, at the same time the court rejected Moses’s contention that the district court committed no legal errors in concluding Moses was entitled to “the entire amount of attorney’s fees incurred until the final resolution of the case.” Thus, the court wrote because the district court committed legal error in awarding Moses the full amount of its requested fees without determining whether any of the work was properly attributed only to the Jenkins claim, the court vacated the fee award and remand for further proceedings View "Moses Enterprises, LLC v. Lexington Insurance Company" on Justia Law

While working for Adnet, Inc. (“Adnet”), Defendants learned of a subcontract that Adnet was attempting to win. Thereafter, Defendants, through their own company, submitted a bid for that same subcontract. After Defendants won the subcontract, Adnet brought claims against them for breach of the duty of loyalty, tortious interference with a business relationship, and business conspiracy. The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that Defendants did not compete against Adnet, that Adnet did not have a business expectancy in the subcontract, and that, without proof of an underlying tort, there was no business conspiracy. Adnet appealed.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants on Adnet’s claims for breach of the duty of loyalty and tortious interference with a business relationship. Further, the court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants on Adnet’s business conspiracy claim and remanded. The court explained that there is sufficient evidence of a direct competition for the subcontract between Adnet and Defendants while they were working for Adnet to bar a grant of summary judgment to Defendants. A reasonable juror could conclude that employees, like Defendants, breach their duty of loyalty to their employer when they learn of a potential business opportunity through their employment and then participate in direct competition with their employer for that opportunity while still employed. View "Adnet, Inc. v. Rohit Soni" on Justia Law

After Defendant’s allocution, but before his attorney argued at his sentencing hearing, the district court forecast that the minimum sentence he would receive was 60 months in prison—his crime’s statutory max. Defendant’s attorney then advocated for a lower sentence. The court imposed a 60-month sentence. He claimed it was procedurally unreasonable for the court to state his term of imprisonment before his attorney argued. Defendant also argued that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because it was not adequately explained and was based on an incorrectly calculated guidelines range.The Fourth Circuit explained that because Defendant did not make this argument to the district court, the court reviewed it for plain error and found none. The court explained that the district court offered enough explanation to satisfy us that it considered Defendant’s alcohol addiction argument and had a reasoned basis for the sentence it imposed. Defendant and his defense counsel argued at sentencing that Defendant’s untreated alcohol addiction contributed to his crime and warranted a lighter sentence. In response, the district court suggested that it was Defendant’s own fault that he had not sought treatment for his addiction. The district court then discussed the nature of Defendant’s offense, the impact his actions had on his victims, and the danger he posed to the public. The record as a whole shows the district court’s rationale for discounting Defendant’s argument and why the court thought the Section 3553(a) factors outweighed it. Accordingly, the court rejected Defendant’s argument that the sentence was inadequately explained and, thus, procedurally unreasonable. View "US v. Joel Covington" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an African American woman, worked as a conductor for Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). During her employment, she belonged to a division of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART) union, which maintained a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Amtrak. Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit pro se. She named Amtrak and the company’s director of employee relations as Defendants, along with three other Amtrak colleagues. Plaintiff asserted state-law claims of breach of contract and tort, as well as a federal claim of racial discrimination in violation of Title VII. Defendants moved to dismiss, and Plaintiff moved for summary judgment as well as for leave to amend her complaint. The district court granted Defendants’ motion and denied Plaintiff’s two motions. The district court held that Plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it declines to unwind a statutory scheme without a clear congressional directive to do so. Plaintiff argued that at least her particular claim is not a minor dispute. The mere fact that Plaintiff’s claim arises under Title VII does not disqualify that claim from being a minor dispute within the RLA’s ambit. The thrust of Plaintiff’s Title VII claim is that Amtrak deviated from its policies when dealing with her. While Plaintiff’s allegations as to her own treatment are factual, those concerning Amtrak’s policies directly implicate the relevant CBA between Plaintiff’s union, SMART, and Amtrak. That some of Plaintiff’s interpretive disagreements concern the Drug-Free Program does not alter the character of her claim. View "Dawn Polk v. Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a subcontractor for Forney Enterprises, a contractor working for the Pentagon. Forney Enterprises was bonded through the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. Plaintiff worked as a project manager for Forney Enterprises, supervising others who engaged in manual labor. After Forney Enterprises’ work at the Pentagon was terminated, Plaintiff sued Fidelity to recover the value of the work he had not been paid for. The district court found that his supervisory work did not qualify as “labor” and granted summary judgment for Fidelity.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Under the Miller Act, contractors hired to work on government projects are required to furnish bonds to pay those who provided labor and were not paid as a result of a dispute. But not all work on a government project qualifies as “labor” under the Miller Act. And even when the work qualifies as labor, to claim his piece of the bond, a laborer must sue within one year of completing the labor to recover. Here, the court found that much of Plaintiff’s work was “labor,” the only work he performed within one year of filing suit, a materials inventory, was not “labor.” And no circumstances warrant estopping Fidelity from asserting the statute of limitations. View "Elliot Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for crimes related to an armed robbery of a Circle K convenience store. He argued that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the elements of aiding and abetting liability, abused its discretion in seating a juror who expressed difficulty hearing during jury selection, and responded inadequately to his objections to several conditions of supervised release.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant has not shown a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different had the jury been instructed on the intent requirement of aiding and abetting liability. Further, the court concluded that in context, it is clear the district court believed Juror Eight’s difficulty hearing was a temporary problem specific to the court’s questioning during jury selection. Even if the district court had not been clear, ambiguity alone cannot demonstrate a “manifest” abuse of discretion. Finally, reading the full transcript, it is clear the district court did not believe any of these conditions delegated too much authority to the Probation Office. Defendant does not challenge the substance of these conditions on appeal, and the court held that it is satisfied that the district court gave “specific attention” to Defendant’s objections before rejecting them. View "US v. Yakotus Odum" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. He appealed, arguing that the district court made four errors warranting reversal. First, the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the applicable statute of limitations. Second, the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the definition of “monetary transaction.” Third, the court erred by instructing the jury on conscious avoidance. And fourth, the conviction must be vacated under Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), because there is no way to determine whether he was convicted on a legally valid theory.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court explained that here Defendant offered no affirmative evidence showing that the conspiracy was terminated or that he affirmatively withdrew from the conspiracy prior to the operative July 2, 2014, limitations date. The court wrote that because some conspiratorial acts in Defendant’s case occurred before July 2, 2014, the limitations date did not mean that the district judge was required to provide a statute of limitations instruction. Declining to give one was, therefore, not an abuse of the substantial discretion the court affords district judges in fashioning jury instructions. Moreover, the court held that the government did, in fact, present evidence of conduct undertaken in furtherance of the money laundering conspiracy past July 2, 2014, even though it was not needed for a non-overt act conspiracy. View "US v. Kenneth Ravenell" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for a review of the denial of his claim to protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge found that Petitioner, a bisexual man and former gang member, had not shown the requisite likelihood that he would be tortured if returned to his home country of Jamaica. Petitioner now challenged that finding on appeal, arguing that it does not properly account for his aggregate risk of torture as required by the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Rodriguez-Arias v. Whitaker, 915 F.3d 968 (4th Cir. 2019).   The Fourth Circuit disagreed and denied the petition. The court explained that it is abundantly clear that both the IJ and the BIA applied the aggregation rule of Rodriguez-Arias, considering not only the individual risk of torture from each actor identified by Petitioner but also the cumulative probability of torture. The IJ recognized from the start, in laying out the applicable law, that “the risks of torture from all sources must be aggregated when determining whether an individual is more likely than not to be tortured in a particular country.”   Further, the court reasoned that Petitioner identified no record evidence suggesting that he would be singled out for torture as, say, a “bisexual former gang member” and thus subjected to a risk of torture greater than the “sum of its parts” – greater, that is, than the risk captured by aggregating the likelihood of torture based on sexual orientation with the risk of torture based on former gang membership. View "O' Neil Kerr v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law