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

On behalf of her son’s estate, Plaintiff brought claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and North Carolina law against an officer and the City of Charlotte (“City”) in federal district court. The district court granted summary judgment for both Defendants after concluding that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity and the City was not responsible for the officer’s conduct under federal or state law. Plaintiff appealed both aspects of the district court’s decision.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions granting summary judgment for the City on Franklin’s § 1983 and negligent training claims. The court vacated the decisions granting summary judgment for the officer on the Section 1983 and assault and battery claims and granting both defendants summary judgment on the wrongful death claim. The court explained that a reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff’s son did not pose an imminent threat to the officers or anyone else. Under those circumstances, the court concluded that the officer violated the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s 1983 claim against her.   Moreover, Plaintiff’s son’s death is not traceable to a subordinate’s decision that may be approved as final by a city policymaker. Instead, as the district court concluded, “the City Manager’s post-facto approval of an internal shooting investigation cannot possibly have caused the constitutional violation.” Reversing the City Manager’s decision cannot undo what is done. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s holding that the City is not liable under Section 1983 for the officer’s shooting. View "Deborah Franklin v. City of Charlotte" on Justia Law

This appeal is the latest installment in a series of challenges to Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC’s (“MVP”) plans to build a natural gas pipeline. Because it intends to construct a portion of the pipeline in West Virginia, MVP obtained a Clean Water Act (“CWA”) certification from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (the “Department”). The certification reflected the Department’s conclusion that MVP’s activities during the pipeline’s construction would not violate the state’s water quality standards. Disagreeing with that determination, landowners and members of various environmental organizations in the state (collectively, “Petitioners”) petitioned for review of the Department’s certification.   The Fourth Circuit vacated the certification, finding the Department’s justifications for its conclusions deficient. The court found that the Department’s reasonable assurance determination suffers from four interrelated failures: It did not (1) sufficiently address MVP’s violation history, (2) include conditions requiring compliance with the O&G CGP and SWPPP, (3) provide a reasoned basis for relying on EPA’s upland CGP, or (4) articulate an adequate explanation for forgoing location-specific antidegradation review. Considering these oversights, the Department’s conclusion that MVP’s in-stream construction would be conducted in a manner that will not violate state water standards were arbitrary and capricious. View "Sierra Club v. West Virginia DEP" on Justia Law

Defendant sought an award of attorney’s fees under the Hyde Amendment following the district court’s dismissal of the government’s criminal case against her. She argued that her prosecution satisfied the Hyde Amendment’s criteria for fee shifting because it was vexatious, frivolous, and in bad faith. She also requests discovery to support her claim. The district court denied discovery and denied attorney’s fees based on its review of the evidence available to the government when it initiated Drake’s prosecution. The appeal here challenged the district court’s exercise of discretion at every turn.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and held that the district court acted within its discretion throughout. The court explained that given the significant evidence against her, Defendant was fortunate to receive a Rule 29 dismissal from the court. The court wrote that, as this case illustrates, such dismissals will not invariably result in an award of Hyde Amendment attorney’s fees. Allowing awards as a matter of course in such cases would contradict the limiting language of the statute and discourage the granting of such dismissals even when taking such action is the right thing to do. View "US v. Shannon Drake" on Justia Law

Defendant and his partner conspired to ensnare drug-addicted women in debt-cycle sex trafficking. Defendant would give the women heroin and cocaine they could not afford and then insist they repay their debt by prostituting themselves for his benefit throughout Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. Defendant provided fentanyl to two women who overdosed. Defendant left the women for dead and destroyed the evidence. One of the women died, but the other survived and testified against him. A jury convicted Defendant of (1) conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, (2) interstate transportation for the purpose of prostitution, (3) distribution of, and possession with intent to distribute, fentanyl, the use of which resulted in death and (4) distribution of, and possession with intent to distribute, fentanyl, the use of which resulted in serious bodily injury. At sentencing, the district court found that Defendant had a prior conviction for a felony drug offense, triggering a mandatory life sentence on Counts 3 and 4. The court sentenced Defendant to life in prison on Counts 1, 3, and 4 and 120 months imprisonment on Count 2, all to be served concurrently. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that Defendant’s speculation about positional isomers of cocaine fails to show that the district court plainly erred in not finding overbreadth on this ground. The court, therefore, affirmed the district court’s determination that Defendant’s Virginia conviction was for a “felony drug offense” that supports the application of Section 841(b)(1)(C) sentencing enhancement. View "US v. Kendall Wysinger" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). That provision makes it unlawful for any person “who has been convicted in any court of[] a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to “possess . . . any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g). At the time of Defendant’s offense, anyone who “knowingly violate[d]” this provision could be imprisoned for up to ten years. The district court sentenced Defendant to ten years imprisonment. The Fourth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to appoint counsel and his Section 2255 motion in its entirety.   The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded. The court held that the district court erred in concluding that Rehaif does not apply to felon-in-possession convictions under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1) and that Rehaif does not apply retroactively on collateral review. The court held that on remand, the district court should consider any issues related to procedural default and prejudice in addition to the merits of Defendant’s claim. Accordingly, the court wrote that in any prejudice analysis, the district court should conduct a fact-intensive inquiry under the Supreme Court’s careful guidance in the Greer decision. However, if the defendant establishes that he did not, in fact, know of his felony status, the district court would be free to award appropriate relief. View "US v. Thomas Waters" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a federal inmate, sued Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) staff alleging, inter alia, discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed the action for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. According to the court, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) required Plaintiff to exhaust both the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program and an additional remedy, particular to prison discrimination claims, administered by the Department of Justice’s Director of Equal Employment Opportunity. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that he was only required to exhaust the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiff asserted in the alternative that the Department of Justice remedies were not “available” to him.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the PLRA’s exhaustion provision is plain. It requires prisoners to utilize all “available” administrative remedies. For Rehabilitation Act claimants, these remedies include both the BOP’s ARP and a separate EEO process administered by the DOJ. Here, Plaintiff failed to exhaust these remedies despite them being “available” to him under the PLRA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice to his ability to exhaust the EEO remedies “available” to him within the meaning of the PLRA. View "Webster Williams, III v. Michael Carvajal" on Justia Law

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (‘‘MVP’’) submitted an application requesting both a Virginia Water Protection individual permit (“VWP Permit”) from Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) and the State Water Control Board (the “Board”) (collectively, “the Agencies”) and a certification from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Army Corps”) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) to build a pipeline. After an extensive review of MVP’s application, the Board adopted DEQ’s recommendation to approve MVP’s application. Petitioners filed this action against the Agencies and several individuals associated with the Agencies (collectively, “Respondents”), asking the court to review the Agencies’ decision.   The Fourth Circuit denied the petition for review, concluding that Agencies’ decision to grant MVP’s application was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court explained that Petitioners’ argument that the Agencies failed to consider whether the Pipeline will comply with Virginia’s narrative water quality standard is belied by the record. DEQ addressed this issue in its responses to the public comments, in which it listed a host of conditions that it placed on the VWP Permit to “ensure that Virginia’s water quality is protected both during and after construction.” The court further explained that the DEQ described the indicators it uses to measure water quality, which Petitioners have not challenged. Accordingly, the court found it is clear from the record that DEQ considered a variety of factors in determining that the construction and operation of the Pipeline would comply with Virginia’s narrative water quality standard. View "Sierra Club v. State Water Control Board" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a now-retired Special Agent with the United States Secret Service, filed a civil suit against two United States Park Police officers (“officers”) under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff asserted that the officers violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment by unlawfully seizing him during two traffic stops. A jury found the officers liable for Plaintiff’s emotional injuries resulting from the constitutional violations and awarded him a total of $205,000 in compensatory damages and $525,000 in punitive damages. The district court entered final judgment in accordance with the jury verdict and later denied the officers’ post-trial motions seeking judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Plaintiff presented a cognizable Bivens claim because his claim is not meaningfully different from the claim asserted in Bivens. Both cases involved allegations of unjustified, warrantless seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment committed by federal “line” officers conducting routine police work. Also, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. They violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by significantly prolonging the initial stop without justification and by initiating a second, unjustified stop. This constitutional right to be free from such unlawful seizures was clearly established at the time the seizures occurred. Further, the court held that Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of emotional injury to support the compensatory damage award, and the punitive damages award was not excessive. View "Nathaniel Hicks v. Gerald Ferreyra" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act. Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion when it chose to retain his original sentence despite reducing his Guidelines range to account for his erroneous designation as a career offender.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the First Step Act does not permit a district court to recalculate a defendant’s benchmark Guidelines range “in any way other than to reflect the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act.” Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2402 n.6 (2022). Arguments based on other changes in law must be considered after determining the benchmark Guidelines range that will “anchor” the proceeding. Here, the Fair Sentencing Act did not affect Defendant’s original Guidelines range. The district court considered Defendant’s arguments and provided an adequate explanation for retaining his original sentence. The court explained that given that starting point, the district court’s retention of his original sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "US v. David Troy, III" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two firearm possession offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g). In determining Defendant’s sentence, the trial court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) sentence enhancement, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(e)(1), based on Defendant’s prior state felony convictions. Defendant moved to vacate and correct his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2255, challenging the sentencing court’s application of the ACCA enhancement. After concluding that Defendant’s three Virginia robbery convictions qualified as predicate “violent felonies” under Section 924(e), the district court denied his motion.   The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order denying Defendant’s Section 2255 motion and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that while Defendant’s appeal of that decision was pending, the Fourth Circuit held that Virginia common-law robbery is not a violent felony for purposes of Section 924(e). Thus, the court concluded that White controls this case and precludes Defendant’s robbery convictions from qualifying as valid ACCA predicates. View "US v. Joseph Williams" on Justia Law