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

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s order affirming the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of her application for Social Security Disability Insurance (“SSDI”). In her application, she alleged major depressive disorder (“MDD”), anxiety disorder, and attention deficit disorder (“ADHD”). Following a formal hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that Plaintiff suffered from severe depression with suicidal ideations, anxiety features and ADHD, but he nonetheless denied her claim based on his finding that she could perform other simple, routine jobs and was, therefore, not disabled. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by (1) according to only little weight to the opinion of her long-time treating psychiatrist (“Dr. B”) and (2) disregarding her subjective complaints based on their alleged inconsistency with the objective medical evidence in the record.   The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to grant disability benefits. The court agreed with Plaintiff that the ALJ failed to sufficiently consider the requisite factors and record evidence by extending little weight to Dr. B’s opinion. The ALJ also erred by improperly disregarding Plaintiff’s subjective statements. Finally, the court found that the ALJ’s analysis did not account for the unique nature of the relevant mental health impairments, specifically chronic depression. The court explained that because substantial evidence in the record clearly establishes Plaintiff’s disability, remanding for a rehearing would only “delay justice.” View "Shelley C. v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the 2021 opinion of the district court affirming the final decision of Defendant Kijakazi, as the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, which denied Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits.   The Fourth Circuit, without resolving the merits, vacated the judgment of the district court and directed a remand to the Commissioner for a new and plenary hearing on Plaintiff’s disability benefits claim, to be conducted before a different and properly appointed administrative law judge (ALJ). The court agreed with Plaintiff’s appellate contention that, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018), the (“ALJ Bright”) who rendered the Commissioner’s final decision did so in contravention of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.   The court explained that the Supreme Court made clear that if an ALJ makes a ruling absent a proper constitutional appointment, and if the claimant interposes a timely Appointments Clause challenge, the appropriate remedy is for the claim to be reheard before a new decisionmaker. Plaintiff did not receive that remedy. The Appointments Clause violation as to Plaintiff was thus not cured, and the 2019 ALJ Decision was likewise rendered in contravention of that Clause. View "Camille Brooks v. Kilolo Kijakazi" on Justia Law

Appellant American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 3 (“Appellant”) filed suit against the State of Maryland alleging that the State breached a statutorily formed contract with current state employees to provide them with certain prescription drug benefits upon retirement. The district court agreed that Maryland law created a contract, it held that the contract was unilateral in nature and that the promised benefits do not vest until an employee retires with sufficient years of service. The district court determined that the current employees represented by Appellant had no vested contractual right to the retirement prescription drug benefits and dismissed the complaint.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. However, the court did so because it found that the statutory language does not create a contract with state employees. The court explained that in reviewing the language of the statutes at issue, it concluded that they do not create a contract binding upon the State. While Section 2-508 does “entitle” retirees to a subsidy, it does not include any unmistakable contract language. Rather, it only “entitles” a retiree to the “same State subsidy allowed a State employee.” The court explained that nothing in Sections 2-508 or 2-509.1 leaves the court with an unmistakably “clear indication that the legislature intended to bind itself contractually.” Therefore, “all doubts must be resolved in favor of the continuance of the power” of the state legislature to modify or repeal enactments of a previous legislature. View "AFSCME Maryland Council 3 v. State of Maryland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his claim against TrustedID, Inc. under South Carolina’s Financial Identity Fraud and Identity Theft Protection Act (the “Act”), S.C. Code Ann. Section 37-20-180. The district court held that Plaintiff alleged an Article III injury in fact but failed to state a claim under the Act. Plaintiff agrees with the district court’s decision on standing but appeals its Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.   The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded with instructions to remand this case to state court where it originated. The court conceded that it is odd that TrustedID failed to comply with the five-digit SSN cutoff, which doesn’t appear to be unique to South Carolina’s Act. But federal courts can’t entertain a case without a concrete injury in fact. The court offered no opinion about whether the alleged facts state a claim under the Act. Absent Article III jurisdiction, that’s a question for Plaintiff to take up in state court. View "Brady O'Leary v. TrustedID, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute fifty or more grams of methamphetamine. The offense carried a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment. At sentencing, Defendant argued that she was eligible for relief from that mandatory minimum under the First Step Act’s safety valve provision. The sole issue on appeal is whether the word “and” in Section 3553(f)(1) connecting the criminal history characteristics applies conjunctively or disjunctively.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed and concluded that “and” is conjunctive. The court wrote that it is persuaded that the plain text of Section 3553(f)(1) requires a sentencing court to find that a defendant has all three of the listed criminal history characteristics before excluding a defendant from safety valve eligibility. View "US v. Cassity Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant Deputy Sheriff cited Plaintiff for a parking violation. In response, Plaintiff complained about Defendant on social media for issuing the citation. Listening to her police radio, Defendant heard about another Deputy’s encounter with Plaintiff. She then called that Deputy and offered to buy him lunch if he cited Plaintiff. After the Deputy cited her, Plaintiff learned of Defendant’s lunch offer. So she sued Defendant in her personal capacity under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s lunch offer violated her First Amendment rights. Defendant made this offer, Plaintiff asserted, to retaliate against Plaintiff for her earlier complaints about Defendant. But the jury found Defendant not liable, leading to Plaintiff’s appeal. She now claims that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the applicable standard for First Amendment retaliation and in excluding certain witness testimony during the trial’s liability phase.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court explained that Plaintiff would have preferred to call additional witnesses to bolster her testimony. But the district court had to balance that interest with the fact that, under the court’s precedent, the inquiry into the second element of the test set forth in Constantine—“whether a person of ordinary firmness in the plaintiff’s position would likely be deterred by the defendant’s retaliatory conduct”—is an objective analysis. Thus, the court affirmed the jury’s verdict and the judgment of the district court in favor of Defendant. View "Rebecca Snoeyenbos v. Marcia Curtis" on Justia Law

Habeas Petitioner was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for thirty years in South Carolina state court for a number of crimes he committed in 1987, including two murders. But in 2004, the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services (“Department”) notified Petitioner that he would never be eligible to seek parole because of an earlier armed-robbery conviction. Petitioner contends that, in reaching this conclusion, the Department violated his federal due-process rights because, in his view, a temporary change in South Carolina parole-eligibility law in 1994 permanently “vested” his parole eligibility, such that the Department could not legally determine him ineligible to ever seek parole. The district court rejected Petitioner’s contention.   The Fourth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court explained that there is no dispute that Petitioner received a statement of reasons why he was not eligible for parole. The 2004 letter from the Department makes clear that Petitioner is ineligible because his 1992 murder convictions followed a 1979 armed-robbery conviction, and pursuant to S.C. Code Section 24-21-640, a defendant convicted of a violent crime who has previously been convicted of another violent crime is not eligible for parole. Accordingly, Petitioner received the limited process required by the Federal Constitution for a parole-eligibility determination. View "Thomas Torrence v. Scott Lewis" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to transporting child pornography. The district court sentenced him to twelve years in prison and lifetime supervised release, subject to certain conditions. Defendant has struggled to comply with the conditions, returning to prison three times for violating them. Defendant challenged the sentence imposed after his third revocation of supervised release. He argued that the court erred in reimposing a special condition limiting his access to pornography (broadly defined), and in imposing a plainly unreasonable 24-month prison term.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s order rejecting Defendant’s objection to the condition, vacated the judgment, and remanded for resentencing. The district court based the revocation sentence on three special-condition violations: Defendant’s possession of a smartphone, his possession of five adult pornographic movies, and his unapproved contact with two minors. The court noted its fear that Defendant’s “getting a smartphone and accessing adult pornography” would soon “lapse into something else.” It also emphasized that Special Condition Nine, “[n]ot viewing pornography,” was “all part of the same thing that brought you here, the child pornography.” In other words, the district court based its sentence in large part on the violation of a condition that the court now vacates as not reasonably related and overbroad. The court, therefore, held that the district court didn’t state a “proper basis” for imposing the statutory maximum, rendering the revocation sentence substantively unreasonable. View "US v. Joseph Castellano" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to two counts — conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) for discharging a firearm during and in relation to that conspiracy. Under subsequent controlling precedent, Defendant now stands convicted of, and imprisoned for, conduct that does not violate Section 924(c) and in fact, is not criminal. Accordingly, he brought this 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 motion asking the district court to vacate his Section 924(c) conviction. The district court refused to do so, and Defendant appealed.   The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate Defendant’s Section 924(c) conviction. The court explained that when Defendant pled guilty in 2012 and was sentenced in 2013, the Supreme Court had implicitly approved Section 924(c)’s residual clause. Only several years later, in 2015, did the Court in Johnson cause a sea change in the law, disapproving its prior precedent upholding similar residual clauses against void-for-vagueness challenges. And it was not until 2019 that Davis dealt the final blow to Section 924(c)’s residual clause. The court wrote that Defendant’s case falls squarely within Reed’s “novelty” framework, and so he has shown cause for his procedural default. Further, Defendant’s Section 924(c) conviction subjects him to imprisonment for conduct that the law does not make criminal. Because the error here worked to Defendant’s “actual and substantial disadvantage,” he has established prejudice to excuse his procedural default. View "US v. Donzell McKinney" on Justia Law

Colorado Bankers is a life, accident, and health insurance company. Colorado Bankers made several interrelated agreements with Academy Financial Assets (Academy). After Academy failed to pay the still outstanding balance in full by the June 30 maturity date, Colorado Bankers filed an amended complaint adding a second breach of contract claim. At issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company in its suit against Academy Financial Assets for violating a loan agreement? Second, did the district court err in concluding a North Carolina statute requires Academy to pay 15% of the outstanding loan balance as attorneys’ fees?   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court acknowledged various federal district and bankruptcy courts have adopted this view, we decline to do so. The court wrote that while perhaps appealing as a policy matter, Academy’s argument has scant basis in the statutory text, and Academy has identified no compelling reason for concluding the Supreme Court of North Carolina would interpret the statute in such an atextual manner. The court thus held the district court did not err in following the plain language of the statute and imposing a 15% fee award without requiring evidence of “the attorney’s actual billings or usual rates.” View "Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company v. Academy Financial Assets, LLC" on Justia Law