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

A woman was convicted of first-degree murder in Maryland state court after being tried jointly with her husband. The prosecution’s case was largely circumstantial, focusing on motive and opportunity, and initially argued that she was the shooter. After her conviction, she moved for a new trial, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In support of her motion, she disclosed attorney-client privileged materials and testified about her defense strategy and communications with counsel. The trial court granted her a new trial but ordered her to turn over privileged materials to the State and allowed the same prosecution team, now privy to her defense strategy, to retry her case. The court also left open the possibility that her prior testimony could be used to impeach her if she testified at the new trial.On appeal, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals assumed, without deciding, that the trial court erred by allowing the same prosecution team to retry the case and by permitting the State to use information obtained from privileged materials. However, the appellate court found no prejudice, reasoning that the new evidence (including the existence of a second wig) did not harm her defense and that her decision not to testify was not prejudicial absent a proffer of her intended testimony. The Maryland Court of Appeals denied certiorari, and the United States Supreme Court also declined review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case on habeas corpus. The Fourth Circuit held that the Maryland Court of Special Appeals’ finding of no prejudice was based on an objectively unreasonable determination of the facts, given the record showing the State’s use of privileged evidence and the impact on the defendant’s ability to testify. However, because the state appellate court had not actually decided whether a constitutional violation occurred, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of habeas relief and remanded for the district court to determine that question de novo. View "Kaur v. Warden" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, representing herself and a proposed class, alleged that she was exposed to ethylene oxide (EtO), a carcinogenic gas, due to emissions from a plant in South Charleston, West Virginia, operated by the defendants from 1978 to 2019. She claimed that this exposure increased her risk of developing serious diseases, necessitating ongoing medical monitoring and diagnostic testing, for which she sought compensation under West Virginia common law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia recognized that West Virginia law allows for medical monitoring claims but held that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing because she did not have a manifest physical injury. The district court also excluded the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Sahu, finding his testimony unreliable, and granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s alleged injury—an increased risk of future illness—was not concrete or ripe, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that, under West Virginia law, the injury in a medical monitoring claim is the tortious exposure to a hazardous substance and the present need for medical testing, not the manifestation of disease. The court found that this injury is concrete and actual, satisfying Article III standing requirements. The Fourth Circuit also determined that the district court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Sahu’s expert testimony, as its criticisms went to the weight, not the admissibility, of his opinions. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and exclusion of the expert, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Sommerville v. Union Carbide Corp." on Justia Law

In August 2022, law enforcement officers in Sterling, Virginia, stopped a Ford Explorer as part of an operation to execute an arrest warrant for a suspected armed robber. Herbert Murillo-Lopez was driving the vehicle. During the stop, officers recovered a firearm from a satchel worn by Murillo-Lopez. He admitted to being an undocumented non-citizen. Subsequent investigation confirmed he was born in El Salvador, had no lawful status in the United States, and had no record of legal entry.A grand jury indicted Murillo-Lopez for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits possession of a firearm by an undocumented non-citizen. He moved to suppress the evidence from the stop, arguing the stop and search were unconstitutional, but the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the motion. Shortly before trial, he moved to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds, but the district court found the motion untimely and unpersuasive. After a jury found him guilty, the district court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal and sentenced him to eight months in prison and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Murillo-Lopez knew he was unlawfully present in the United States. The court also found the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion that Murillo-Lopez might be the subject of the arrest warrant, and that the search of his satchel was consensual. Finally, the court rejected his Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(5)(A), holding that existing circuit precedent remains valid after recent Supreme Court decisions. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Murillo-Lopez" on Justia Law

An attorney formerly employed by the Federal Public Defender’s Office (FDO) for the Western District of North Carolina alleged that her supervisor sexually harassed her. After she reported the harassment, the FDO’s Unit Executive took steps to separate her from the supervisor, including changing reporting lines, authorizing telework, and offering her a promotion. The attorney also initiated proceedings under the judiciary’s Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR) Plan, which provided for both investigation and mediation. During this process, she alleged additional retaliation and discrimination by the Unit Executive. She ultimately left her position and withdrew from the EDR process before a formal hearing could occur.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina conducted a six-day bench trial and issued a lengthy decision. The court found that, while there were procedural missteps and some insensitive comments by supervisors, the FDO’s response to the harassment was not deliberately indifferent, retaliatory, or discriminatory. The court also found that the attorney’s due-process rights were not violated, as she was not coerced to abandon the EDR process based on a reasonable belief that the Unit Executive would be the final decisionmaker. The court granted summary judgment to two other officials, finding no evidence of discriminatory intent or deliberate indifference, and excluded certain “Me Too” evidence as inadmissible.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with a panel of judges from outside the circuit due to recusals, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the attorney failed to prove a due-process violation or equal-protection claim. The court found that the EDR process, while imperfect, was not fundamentally unfair or coercive, and that the FDO’s response to the harassment was not clearly unreasonable. The court also held that any error in excluding the “Me Too” evidence was harmless, denied the attorney’s motions to unseal certain materials and for summary reversal, and declined to consider a new constitutional challenge to Title VII’s exclusion of judiciary employees. View "Strickland v. Moritz" on Justia Law

Maryland enacted a statute imposing a tax on digital advertising revenues, targeting only large companies with at least $100 million in global annual gross revenues. In response to concerns that these companies would pass the tax cost onto customers and potentially blame the state for price increases, Maryland amended the law to include a “pass-through provision.” This provision prohibited companies from directly passing the tax cost to customers by means of a separate fee, surcharge, or line-item on invoices, though it did not prevent companies from raising prices or otherwise recouping the tax cost in a non-itemized way.A group of trade associations challenged the pass-through provision, arguing that it violated the First Amendment by restricting their ability to communicate with customers about the tax and its impact on pricing. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland initially dismissed the First Amendment claims for lack of jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that the Act did not bar the claims and remanded for consideration on the merits. On remand, the district court found that the provision regulated speech but dismissed the facial challenge, reasoning that the provision had constitutional applications.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the pass-through provision is a content-based restriction on speech, as it prohibits companies from communicating certain truthful information to customers. The court found that the provision could not survive even intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment, as it was not adequately tailored to any substantial government interest. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for consideration of the appropriate remedy, holding that the pass-through provision is facially unconstitutional in all its applications. View "Chamber of Commerce v. Lierman" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident of the United States, originally from Mexico, was convicted for purchasing firearms in the United States and reselling them in Mexico without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A). As a result of these unlicensed sales, he was sentenced to 78 months in prison. Following his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, alleging that his conviction constituted an “aggravated felony” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically as “illicit trafficking in firearms.”An immigration judge determined that the conviction qualified as an aggravated felony and ordered his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed this decision, agreeing that the conviction under § 922(a)(1)(A) matched the generic definition of “illicit trafficking in firearms” as used in the INA. The petitioner then sought review of the BIA’s order, arguing that the statute of conviction criminalized a broader range of conduct than the generic aggravated felony and thus was not a categorical match.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether a conviction under § 922(a)(1)(A) categorically constitutes “illicit trafficking in firearms.” The court held that the plain meaning of “illicit trafficking in firearms” is “unlawful trading or dealing in firearms,” and that the statute of conviction fits within this definition. The court rejected the petitioner’s arguments regarding overbreadth and found no ambiguity in the statutory language. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) qualifies as an aggravated felony for “illicit trafficking in firearms” under the INA. View "Alvarez Ronquillo v. Bondi" on Justia Law

While incarcerated at a North Carolina state prison in February 2016, Manuel Moreno developed flu-like symptoms and sought medical attention. A nurse examined him and recorded slightly elevated respiration, but otherwise normal vital signs. Dr. Carol Bosholm, the on-duty physician, did not personally examine Moreno but reviewed the nurse’s notes, diagnosed sinus congestion and pharyngitis, and prescribed antibiotics. That same day, several inmates from Moreno’s housing area also reported similar symptoms, and some tested positive for influenza. Dr. Bosholm ordered Moreno and others to be quarantined for seventy-two hours, leaving general instructions for monitoring but no specific orders to check oxygen saturation or respiratory rates. Over the weekend, medical staff made routine rounds, but there is no record that Moreno’s oxygen or respiration were measured, nor that he reported worsening symptoms. By Monday, Moreno’s condition had deteriorated significantly, leading to hospitalization, a seizure, and long-term complications.Moreno filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging state law medical malpractice and gross negligence, as well as a federal claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court excluded his expert’s testimony on the standard of care for the malpractice claim, finding the expert did not meet North Carolina’s requirements for such testimony. At trial, the court granted Dr. Bosholm’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on all claims, concluding Moreno failed to present sufficient evidence of causation, breach of the standard of care, or the heightened culpability required for gross negligence and deliberate indifference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 601 required application of North Carolina’s expert competency rule for medical malpractice claims, and that Moreno’s expert was properly excluded. The court also found insufficient evidence to support the gross negligence and deliberate indifference claims, upholding judgment for Dr. Bosholm. View "Moreno v. Bosholm" on Justia Law

The defendant pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia to two charges: possession with intent to distribute heroin and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. During sentencing, a significant dispute arose over whether the defendant should be classified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines, which would substantially increase his advisory sentencing range. The career offender designation was based on the defendant’s current conviction and two prior felony convictions, both deemed “controlled substance offenses” under the Guidelines.The district court, after extensive briefing and a continued hearing, determined that both the defendant’s prior Virginia state conviction for drug distribution and a prior federal conviction for distribution of crack cocaine qualified as predicate offenses for the career offender enhancement. The court sentenced the defendant as a career offender to 151 months in prison, at the low end of the applicable Guidelines range. The defendant appealed, arguing that neither prior conviction should count as a “controlled substance offense” under the Guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the Virginia statute at issue did not criminalize attempt offenses as part of completed distribution offenses, distinguishing it from a West Virginia statute previously found overbroad in United States v. Campbell. The court also held that, under its precedent and in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. United States, the proper approach for determining whether a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate offense is to look at the law in effect at the time of the prior conviction, not at the time of federal sentencing. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and upheld the career offender enhancement. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Louise Trauma Center LLC submitted four Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) between January and June 2021, seeking records about the training and performance of asylum officers. After receiving only boilerplate acknowledgment letters and no substantive response for over two years, Louise Trauma Center filed suit, alleging that USCIS had unlawfully failed to produce the requested records. Following the lawsuit, USCIS produced 2,756 pages of documents, many of which were heavily redacted, and informed Louise Trauma Center of its right to file an administrative appeal regarding the redactions.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted USCIS’s motion to dismiss, holding that the case was moot because the agency had produced the requested records. The district court also found that Louise Trauma Center had not constructively exhausted its administrative remedies and was required to pursue an administrative appeal regarding the redactions before seeking judicial review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Louise Trauma Center had constructively exhausted its administrative remedies because USCIS failed to provide a timely determination on the FOIA requests, as required by statute. The court further held that the case was not moot, since USCIS had not produced all unredacted records and Louise Trauma Center continued to challenge the adequacy of the production. Finally, the court concluded that Louise Trauma Center was not required to exhaust new administrative remedies regarding the redactions after filing suit, as the constructive exhaustion provision applied. The district court’s dismissal was therefore reversed. View "Louise Trauma Center LLC v. Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law

Mary Herkert, an employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA) with multiple physical disabilities, requested a scheduled telework arrangement as an accommodation for her medical needs. After her request was denied and she indicated her intent to pursue equal employment opportunity remedies, Herkert was reassigned from her supervisory Branch Chief position to a non-supervisory management analyst role. Although the new position allowed her to telework as requested, Herkert contended that the reassignment was a demotion, resulting in a loss of supervisory authority, prestige, and advancement opportunities, despite no change in pay or benefits.After exhausting administrative remedies, Herkert filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the SSA Commissioner, holding that Herkert’s reassignment did not constitute a sufficiently “significant” adverse employment action because her pay and benefits remained unchanged. The court also found the reassignment to be voluntary, relying on Herkert’s acceptance of the new position and her expression of gratitude. On this basis, the court concluded that Herkert could not prevail on her discrimination, retaliation, or reasonable accommodation claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court’s judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a plaintiff challenging a job transfer for discrimination need not show a “significant” change in working conditions, but only “some disadvantageous change.” The appellate court also found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Herkert’s reassignment was truly voluntary. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these clarified legal standards. View "Herkert v. Bisignano" on Justia Law