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

Appellant, a former employee of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“ODNI”), asserts that ODNI violated the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”),by delaying her leave request and not hiring her for a permanent position. The district court determined that Appellant failed to meet her burden of proof to demonstrate that she was not selected for the permanent position “by reason of” ODNI’s FMLA interference.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that t the record supports the district court’s finding that Appellant’s non-selection for the permanent position was the result of the hiring official’s poor impression of Appellant as a prospective employee and Appellant’s attendance problems prior to the FMLA interference. View "Hannah P. v. Avril Haines" on Justia Law

In November 2003, Petitioner shot and killed his estranged wife in the front seat of her car while their four-year-old son sat in the back. As part of the same incident, Petitioner also shot and killed his wife’s boyfriend. Petitioner was charged with capital murder, among other charges. The trial court rejected Petitioner’s insanity defense but cited his “severe mental illness” as a mitigating factor in declining to impose the death penalty. Petitioner subsequently attempted to collaterally attack his 2007 convictions and sentence in state court. After his state habeas petitions were dismissed, Petitioner sought habeas relief in federal court. The district court dismissed Petitioner’s 2013 federal habeas petition as untimely. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the petition’s dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) on the ground that his “multiple mental health disabilities . . . had prevented him from effectively petitioning the court for habeas relief.” The district court dismissed Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion, and this appeal followed.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s order denying Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion and remand the case to the district court. The court reaffirmed that Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion was timely filed and found that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on whether his mental illness during the relevant period entitled him to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) and equitable tolling of the statute of limitations governing his habeas petition. The court explained that Petitioner suffers from a serious mental illness. He has sufficiently alleged and provided evidence supporting the severity and continuing nature of his mental illness to at least justify an inquiry into whether and for how long his illness may have prevented him from filing his habeas petition. View "Berman Justus, Jr. v. Harold Clarke" on Justia Law

The United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia (together, the “governments”) appealed the district court’s dismissal of their complaint under the False Claims Act and Virginia state law. The governments alleged that Walgreen Co. (“Walgreens”) misrepresented that certain patients met Virginia’s Medicaid-eligibility requirements for expensive Hepatitis C drugs. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that Virginia’s eligibility requirements violated the Medicaid Act, and therefore Walgreens’s misrepresentations were immaterial as a matter of law.   The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded. The court held that the governments plausibly allege facts that establish materiality. The court wrote that the alleged misrepresentation (that Patient 12 couldn’t use the cheaper drug alternative) has nothing to do with the eligibility requirements Walgreens now challenges. The district court didn’t explain how the supposed illegality of Virginia’s eligibility requirements rendered this misrepresentation immaterial or how it otherwise failed to state a claim. Further, the court explained it is also persuaded that Walgreens can’t avoid liability by collaterally challenging the eligibility requirements’ legality under a line of cases beginning with United States v. Kapp. Moreover, the court explained that Walgreens offers no good reason why a contract law (and even more specifically, a collective-bargaining-contract-law) rule should displace the liability created by the False Claims Act, a federal statute. View "US v. Walgreen Co." on Justia Law

The Montgomery County Board of Education adopted Guidelines for Gender Identity for 2020–2021 that permit schools to develop gender support plans for students. The Guidelines allow implementation of these plans without the knowledge or consent of the students’ parents. They even authorize the schools to withhold information about the plans from parents if the school deems the parents to be unsupportive. In response, three parents with children attending Montgomery County public schools challenged the portion of the Guidelines that permit school officials to develop gender support plans and then withhold information about a child’s gender support plan from their parents. Terming it the “Parental Preclusion Policy,” the parents alleged the policy unconstitutionally usurps the parents’ fundamental right to raise their children under the Fourteenth Amendment.   The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for the case to be dismissed. The court explained that the parents have not alleged that their children have gender support plans, are transgender or are even struggling with issues of gender identity. As a result, they have not alleged facts that the Montgomery County public schools have any information about their children that is currently being withheld or that there is a substantial risk information will be withheld in the future. Thus, under the Constitution, they have not alleged the type of injury required to show standing. Absent an injury that creates standing, federal courts lack the power to address the parents’ objections to the Guidelines. Thus, the court remanded to the district court to dismiss the case for lack of standing. View "John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted—and issued three concurrent life sentences—for conspiracy to commit murder for hire resulting in death and aiding and abetting carjacking resulting in death, and one count of aiding and abetting murder with a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. The first two convictions served as the predicate offenses for Defendant’s third conviction. Defendant now appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 motion to vacate his conviction. He argued that following the Supreme Court’s decisions in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), and United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022), his predicate offenses no longer qualify as crimes of violence under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(3).   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that because aiding and abetting carjacking resulting in death remains a valid predicate offense under Section 924(c)(3)(A), Defendant’s 924(j) conviction must stand. The court wrote that that predicate, alone, is sufficient to support his Section 924(j) conviction. Moreover, the court concluded that post-Davis and Taylor, aiding and abetting carjacking resulting in death remains a crime of violence under either Sections 924(c)(3)(A)’s force or elements clause. Due to this, the court wrote, it need not reach the validity of Defendant’s conspiracy to commit murder for hire resulting in death predicate, and the court held that his Section 924(j) conviction stands irrespective of the ambiguity in the general verdict form. View "US v. Michael Draven" on Justia Law

These consolidated cases present weighty and important questions involving the separation of powers as it relates to a project of national interest. Petitioners are environmental groups challenging federal agency actions that will enable the final construction and initial operation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a 300-plus-mile underground pipeline that will transport natural gas from West Virginia to Virginia. But during the pendency of this matter before the Fourth Circuit, Congress proactively intervened by legislation and enacted the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. Section 324 of that Act purports to ratify the agencies’ actions regarding the Mountain Valley Pipeline and remove our jurisdiction over the underlying petitions. Respondents—the federal agencies and the Mountain Valley Pipeline—moved in for the dismissal of the petitions.   The Fourth Circuit granted Respondents’ motions to dismiss. In sum, with Section 324, Congress removed our jurisdiction in a way that mandates the dismissal of the underlying petitions, which challenge agency actions that grant necessary approvals for the completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline. The court explained that “no court” has jurisdiction to review these approvals, including the DC Circuit, whose jurisdiction is limited to “claims alleging the invalidity of [Section 324] or that an action is beyond the scope of authority conferred by [Section 324].” But Congress left in place the general grant of jurisdiction to this Court under the Natural Gas Act over challenges to future pipelines or other natural gas facilities in this circuit, as well as future challenges to operations of the Mountain Valley Pipeline not covered by the express terms of Section 324. View "Appalachian Voices v. United States Department of the Interior" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder for hire resulting in death, aiding and abetting carjacking resulting in death, and aiding and abetting murder with a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. The first two convictions served as the predicate offenses for Defendant's third conviction.Defendant filed a motion to vacate, arguing that following the Supreme Court’s decisions in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), and United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022), his predicate offenses no longer qualify as crimes of violence.The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that aiding and abetting carjacking resulting in death remains a valid predicate offense under 18 USC 924(c)(3)(A). View "US v. Michael Draven" on Justia Law

Two companies that operate in the real estate development industry have spent years embroiled in a dispute over their shared name: “Dewberry.” Dewberry Engineers sued Dewberry Group to quell the latter’s use of several new insignias it developed as part of its rebrand. Dewberry Engineers owns federal trademark rights to the “Dewberry” mark and claims Dewberry Group’s rebranding efforts infringe that mark and breach an agreement struck between the sparring corporations over a decade ago. The district court sided with Dewberry Engineers in the proceedings below, assessing a nearly $43 million profit disgorgement award against Dewberry Group for its infringement, enjoining it from further breaches of its agreement with Dewberry Engineers, and ordering it to pay attorneys’ fees for forcing Dewberry Engineers to litigate an exceptional case of trademark infringement.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the parties share an identical, arbitrary dominant word and disclaim different suffixes (and prefixes in some cases) in the marks at issue. The record shows they also employ those marks in related, overlapping, and complementary services. Those details go some distance toward creating a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of either party’s “Dewberry” mark. Moreover, the court explained that despite Dewberry Group’s failure to calculate exact figures or provide evidence of deductions from infringement revenues for losses and expenses, the court equitably reduced the requested award by twenty percent to $42,975,725.60.  The court finds no error of fact or law suggesting the district court’s conclusions were an abuse of its discretion. View "Dewberry Engineers Inc. v. Dewberry Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant robbed the CresCom Bank in Conway, South Carolina. During the robbery, Council fatally shot the bank teller and the bank manager. Defendant was convicted of (1) bank robbery resulting in death (Count One); and (2) using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in a manner causing death (Count Two). The government filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. The jury found Defendant guilty on both charges. The jury unanimously recommended a sentence of death on each count. On appeal, Defendant raised four challenges to the district court’s handling of the guilt phase.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. First, the court held that the district court fulfilled its obligations under Sections 4241 and 4247. The court raised the issue of competency on its own initiative several times, including before and during a pretrial conference held roughly a year and a half before trial. Further, the court explained that Defendant’s arguments about his need for more time and the preferability of alternatives to denying his motion outright asked the court to second-guess the district court’s case-specific judgments in “areas where the district court’s comparative expertise is at its zenith and ours its nadir.” Thus, the court held district court made no reversible error in denying Defendant’s fifth continuance motion. Finally, the court explained that B at least one of Defendant’s current arguments—that the Federal Death Penalty Act makes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority by incorporating state law execution practices—was plainly available when Defendant filed his first Rule 33 motion. View "US v. Brandon Council" on Justia Law

After receiving a long suspension, Jacob Doe sued Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (“Virginia Tech”) and several university officials, alleging that Virginia Tech’s Title IX investigation, hearing, and appeal process denied him due process of law. The district court dismissed Doe’s complaint, holding that he hadn’t alleged a cognizable liberty or property interest in his continuing education.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed for a different reason. The court held that even assuming Doe has such an interest, he hasn’t alleged that he was deprived of it without sufficient process. The court wrote that Doe complains that his witnesses couldn’t appear in person at the hearing because it was held during the summer. But he doesn’t allege that the witnesses weren’t able to provide testimony by phone, video, or in writing. Nor does Doe claim he sought to continue the hearing until his witnesses were available. And Doe admits that the investigator interviewed his witnesses during her investigation into Roe, and the allegations against Roe were adjudicated at the same hearing. So these allegations too, don’t rise to the level of a due-process violation.   Moreover, the court explained that to find that Doe alleged a due-process violation on this sparse record, the court would have to hold that university students have a right—in effectively every disciplinary hearing—to advance notice of the evidence to be presented against them. The ask is even more striking here because Doe doesn’t allege that he sought a continuance or that Virginia Tech relied on the surprise testimony. Therefore, the court rejected Doe’s claim of error. View "Jacob Doe v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universit" on Justia Law