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

Ramaco Resources suffered a coal silo collapse and submitted a claim for losses to Federal Insurance Company. When Federal denied the claim, Ramaco sued. After a twelve-day trial, a jury awarded Ramaco $7.6 million in contract damages and prejudgment interest. The jury also awarded $25 million under West Virginia’s Hayseeds doctrine, which permits an insured party to claim consequential damages when it prevails after suing to collect on its insurance policy. But post-trial, the district court reduced Ramaco’s contract damages and interest to $1.8 million and entirely rejected the Hayseeds damages as a matter of state law. The district court also conditionally granted a new trial on the Hayseeds award, reasoning that—even if Hayseeds damages were theoretically permissible—the jury’s $25 million award was punitive and thus invalid. Ramaco appealed.   The Fourth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. The court reversed the district court’s reduction of contract damages and prejudgment interest because the insurance policy’s plain language and the trial evidence support the jury’s original $7.6 million award. And the court reversed the district court’s wholesale rejection of Hayseeds damages. But the court affirmed its conditional grant of a new Hayseeds damages trial. The court explained that West Virginia law requires courts to give insurance policies their plain, ordinary meaning whenever possible. Here, the policy’s plain language extended the period of restoration until Ramaco’s operations were restored to the level of generating the net profits that would have existed but for the collapse. To determine that level, a court must consider both throughput and expenses. The district court did not. View "Ramaco Resources, LLC v. Federal Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Defendant victimized over a million Americans by furthering a country-wide “scareware” scam that tricked innocent computer users into paying for unnecessary software to remedy entirely fabricated issues purported to plague their devices. An apparent fugitive—having sought for years to evade paying even a cent of the $163,167,539.95 in restitution ordered for her role in the scheme—Defendant sought vacatur of that aging monetary judgment. The district court denied Defendant’s motion.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that an arguable basis clearly supported the judgment imposed, and it cannot be said that there was a “total want of jurisdiction” or a “clear usurpation of power” such that any defect renders the judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4). Further, the court explained that Defendant’s aggregated circumstances are not extraordinary such that she is entitled to vacatur under Rule 60(b) catch-all, and the district court soundly exercised its discretion in denying her such relief. This outcome is wholly consonant with our directive to “delicately balance the sanctity of final judgments . . . and the incessant command of the court’s conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts.” Thus, the court held that the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion for vacatur under Rule 60(b)(4) and (b)(6). Accordingly, Defendant remained liable for $163,167,539.95 in restitution—an amount that would justly recompense the victims. View "FTC v. Kristy Ross" on Justia Law

The jury convicted Petitioner of the four murders, and the court sentenced him to death.3 Id. at 475. On July 1, 2021, however, his sentence was commuted to life without parole after Virginia abolished the death penalty by legislation. Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentences, but the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. On remand, the district court permitted the parties to engage in further discovery, during which Petitioner learned of additional evidence that he alleged was also Brady or Napue material. Petitioner appealed and sought a certificate of appealability on a single issue: “whether the suppression of evidence and knowing presentation of false and misleading testimony was cumulatively material” under a combined Brady and Napue analysis. The sole question on appeal is whether Petitioner can show that the evidence he cites as inappropriately suppressed under Brady and the testimony he cites as inappropriately offered under Napue was cumulatively material.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Petitioner cannot satisfy the Brady standard. The Brady and Napue evidence noted herein would have weakened certain aspects of the prosecution’s case but would not have undermined the core of the evidence against Juniper. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Brady and Napue evidence cannot “reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict” and that there is not “a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” View "Anthony Juniper v. Melvin Davis" on Justia Law

Shortly after witnessing a person leave Defendant’s home, Kannapolis, North Carolina police officer Jeremy Page discovered 0.1 grams of cocaine base during a search of Johnson’s vehicle. Officer Page then confronted Defendant about the cocaine sale and instructed him to turn over any drugs still in his possession. In return, Officer Page assured Bailey that he was “going to take it and . . . leave,” and everything would still be “squared away.” Prompted by Officer Page’s offer, Defendant handed over 0.7 grams of cocaine base. Defendant helped Officer Page locate and arrest an individual for whom the police had an outstanding warrant but did not otherwise aid in Officer Page’s investigations. Then Officer Page obtained two warrants for Defendant’s arrest. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court should have granted his suppression motion because his arrest constituted a breach of Officer Page’s September 24 promise that all would be “squared away.”   The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s decision denying Defendant’s motion to suppress and the judgment of conviction and remanded. The court concluded that if Officer Page did breach a promise not to arrest Defendant for either quantity of drugs recovered on September 24 in exchange for his cooperation, Defendant could seek to enforce that promise against the government. Further, the court wrote that a police officer is not entitled to arbitrarily breach these agreements, which have become a central feature of the many drug-related prosecutions that occupy our criminal legal system each year. View "US v. Maurice Bailey" on Justia Law

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