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

A former medical student at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Kieran Bhattacharya, sued multiple university officials, alleging they reprimanded, suspended, and expelled him in violation of the First Amendment because of his views expressed during a faculty panel on microaggressions. The officials asserted that they took these actions due to Bhattacharya’s confrontational and threatening behavior.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia held that Bhattacharya could not provide evidence that the officials punished him due to his speech, siding with the officials. Bhattacharya appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Bhattacharya failed to present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue as to whether his speech caused the actions taken against him. The court found that the university's administrators appropriately exercised their authority to ensure the safety of the school’s faculty and staff. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Bhattacharya's request to amend his complaint to add a conspiracy claim and the dismissal of his due process claim. View "Bhattacharya v. Murray" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to remand two lawsuits back to Maryland state court. The lawsuits were brought by the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County against more than 20 energy companies, including BP P.L.C. The local governments accused the companies of misrepresenting and concealing information about the environmental impact of their fossil fuel products in violation of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act and various state tort laws. The companies tried to remove the cases to federal court, arguing that because they had acted under federal authority in their operations, the court had federal question jurisdiction. However, the appeals court found that the company's activities related to fossil fuel production were not relevant to the claims brought by the local governments, which were based on alleged concealment or misrepresentation of information about fossil fuel products. The court also rejected the companies' argument that the First Amendment question related to their right to free speech provided a basis for federal jurisdiction, as this question was a defense rather than a necessary element of the plaintiffs' state-law claims. View "Anne Arundel County v. BP P.L.C." on Justia Law

In this case, a police officer, Michael Roane, shot and killed Tina Ray’s dog while attempting to serve an arrest warrant. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Roane and remanded the case for trial. The crux of the case was the dispute over Roane's perception of the threat posed by the dog. Roane asserted that he believed the dog was unrestrained and posed an immediate threat to his safety. However, Ray and other witnesses testified that Roane had stopped his retreat and took a step towards the dog before shooting, suggesting that he knew the dog could no longer reach him and did not pose an imminent threat. The Court of Appeals held that this dispute over material facts was for a jury to resolve, not a court, and could not be decided prior to trial. The court also held that if a jury credits Ray's allegations and draws permissible inferences in her favor, it could infer that Roane's shooting of the dog was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The court also rejected Roane's claim to qualified immunity. View "Ray v. Roane" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Bikachi Amisi, a contract nurse, sued Officer Lakeyta Brooks and Officer Roy Townsend for violating her Fourth Amendment rights when she was mistakenly strip searched on her first day of work at Riverside Regional Jail. Amisi also brought several tort claims under Virginia state law. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity and good-faith immunity under Virginia law. They also argued that the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision barred Amisi's claims. The district court denied their motions and the defendants appealed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. It held that both officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, a legal protection that shields officers who commit constitutional violations but who could reasonably believe their actions were lawful, because their actions were not reasonable and Amisi’s right to be free from unreasonable strip searches was clearly established. The court also held that the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act did not bar Amisi's state-law claims because her injuries did not arise out of her employment. The Court further held that Officer Townsend was not entitled to immunity under Virginia law as his belief that his conduct was lawful was not objectively reasonable. View "Amisi v. Brooks" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe, filed an appeal against two orders from the district court. The first order denied her request to compel the defendant, Cenk Sidar, to provide a DNA sample for a sexual assault case. The second order demanded that Doe disclose her real name in the proceedings following a default judgment against Sidar.The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal regarding the DNA sample for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that orders denying requests for physical or mental examinations are not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.However, the court did rule on the anonymity issue. The court found that the district court committed legal error in its order demanding Doe to disclose her real name. The district court had understated Doe's interest in anonymity, announced a general rule that fairness considerations invariably cut against allowing a plaintiff to be anonymous at trial unless the defendant is also anonymous, and failed to recognize the significance of its default judgment on liability. The Court of Appeals thus vacated the non-anonymity order and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to reconsider its order in light of the appeals court's opinion. The court emphasized the importance of Doe's privacy interests, particularly given that the case involved allegations of sexual assault. View "Doe v. Sidar" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the defendant, a registered sex offender, was convicted for knowingly failing to update his registration as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The appellant argued that as he was mobile without a fixed abode, he was not required to register anywhere under SORNA. He also contested the district court's jury instruction on SORNA’s definition of “resides,” claiming it expanded the definition. Furthermore, he argued that SORNA, as applied to him, violated the Tenth Amendment. He also contested two aspects of his sentence: an eight-level enhancement for his third degree sexual abuse of a minor and possession of child pornography, and his lifetime term of supervised release.The court held that the district court correctly instructed the jury on the meaning of “resides” and “habitually lives” under SORNA and that SORNA, as applied to the appellant, did not violate the Tenth Amendment. The court also affirmed the district court’s sentence as procedurally and substantively reasonable. It concluded that the appellant, who was required to register as a sex offender due to a previous conviction, failed to update his registration while residing in West Virginia, thus violating SORNA. The court found that his argument of not having a fixed abode did not exempt him from the registration requirements of SORNA. View "United States v. Kokinda" on Justia Law

The case in question originated from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appellant, Carlos Emanuel Kinard, had been convicted on twelve counts related to a drug and racketeering conspiracy in 1994. One of the counts was for the use of a firearm during and in relation to a "crime of violence" under § 924(c), with the predicate offense arising under the violent crimes in aid of racketeering statute (VICAR) for VICAR assault with a dangerous weapon, which incorporated the North Carolina statutory crime of assault with a deadly weapon. In 2016, Kinard moved to vacate his sentence under § 2255, arguing that the VICAR assault offense was not a "crime of violence" as per the definition in Johnson v. United States. The district court rejected this as untimely and meritless.In 2019, Kinard moved for authorization to file a successive habeas petition based on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis, which held that the residual clause of § 924(c) is unconstitutionally vague. Kinard argued that the VICAR assault offense is not categorically a "crime of violence" as it could be committed without the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another and could be committed negligently or recklessly. The district court denied this motion, leading to Kinard's appeal.The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the VICAR assault with a dangerous weapon, incorporating the North Carolina assault offense, qualifies as a § 924(c) "crime of violence". The court relied on its recent decision in United States v. Thomas to conclude that the purposeful or knowing conduct element of the VICAR assault offense satisfies the mens rea requirement for a "crime of violence" under § 924(c). Thus, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "US v. Carlos Kinard" on Justia Law

In this case, Sony Music Entertainment and numerous other record companies and music publishers sued Cox Communications, alleging that Cox's customers used its internet service to infringe their copyrights. The plaintiffs argued that Cox should be held accountable for its customers' copyright infringement. A jury found Cox liable for both willful contributory and vicarious infringement of over 10,000 copyrighted works owned by the plaintiffs and awarded $1 billion in statutory damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Cox was not vicariously liable for its customers' copyright infringement because Cox did not profit from its subscribers’ acts of infringement, a legal prerequisite for vicarious liability. However, the court affirmed the jury’s finding of willful contributory infringement because Cox knew of the infringing activity and materially contributed to it.The court vacated the $1 billion damages award and remanded the case for a new trial on damages, holding that the jury’s finding of vicarious liability could have influenced its assessment of statutory damages. The court did not vacate the contributory infringement verdict. View "Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications, Incorporated" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, six men affiliated with the transnational criminal organization MS-13 were convicted of sex trafficking a thirteen-year-old girl by force, fraud, or coercion, and conspiracy to do the same. The accused appealed the district court’s denial of their motions to suppress evidence obtained from Facebook warrants, arguing the warrants failed the probable cause and particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment. One of the accused also appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for acquittal, contending that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction.The court held that the Facebook warrants were supported by probable cause, as they were based on substantial evidence linking the accused’s use of Facebook to their criminal activities. The court also held that the warrants were sufficiently particular as they identified the items to be seized by reference to the suspected criminal offenses and confined the officers’ discretion by restricting them from rummaging through the accused’s social media data in search of unrelated criminal activities. However, the court noted that future warrants enhance their claims to particularity by requesting data only from the period of time during which the defendant was suspected of taking part in the criminal conspiracy.The court rejected one appellant's sufficiency challenge to his conviction and affirmed his convictions, finding that substantial evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that he was guilty of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of a minor under fourteen or of a minor by force, fraud, or coercion, and of conspiracy to transport a minor in interstate commerce with intent for the minor to engage in prostitution or illegal sexual activity.Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects. View "United States v. Zelaya-Veliz" on Justia Law

A former patients of Pediatric Partners for Attention and Learning, Inc. and its founder, Dr. Joni Johnson, sued them in state court after discovering that the clinic’s in-house psychologist, Sharonda Avery, was not a licensed psychologist. The clinic and Dr. Johnson asked their professional liability insurance carrier, Medical Mutual Insurance Company of North Carolina, to defend and indemnify them in those lawsuits. Medical Mutual responded by filing a declaratory judgment action in federal court, arguing that it could rescind the policy covering Pediatric Partners and Dr. Johnson due to Dr. Johnson’s material misstatements in her insurance applications. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that Medical Mutual has no duty to indemnify or defend Dr. Johnson or Pediatric Partners under Virginia law due to material misstatements made by Dr. Johnson in her policy applications. The court affirmed the district court's decision that Dr. Johnson's misrepresentation that none of her employees had been subject to disciplinary investigative proceedings was a material misstatement, and therefore, Medical Mutual could rescind its professional liability policy covering Pediatric Partners and Dr. Johnson. View "Medical Mutual Insurance Co. of North Carolina v. Gnik" on Justia Law