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

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires manufacturers of new tobacco products to obtain authorization from the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) prior to marketing their products. In reviewing a manufacturer’s Premarket Tobacco Product Application, FDA must determine that the marketing of the product is “appropriate for the protection of the public health.” Section  910(c)(4), 123 Stat. at 1810. The agency denied Avail Vapor LLC’s application for its flavored electronic cigarettes, chiefly on the grounds that its products posed a serious risk to youth without enough offsetting benefits to adults.   The Fourth Circuit upheld the FDA’s decision denying Avail’s application. The court explained that under the Tobacco Control Act (TCA) the FDA has the daunting task of ensuring that another generation of Americans does not become addicted to nicotine and tobacco products. The TCA gives FDA the flexibility to determine whether marketing of a new tobacco product is appropriate for the protection of public health, taking into account evolving science and an everchanging market. FDA made the determination that Avail’s flavored ENDS products, seeking in all respects to mimic those sweet treats to which youth are particularly attracted, pose a substantial risk of youth addiction without enough offsetting benefits to adult smokers. FDA could not allow young adults to perceive e-cigarettes as another Baby Ruth or Milky Way, only to find themselves in the grip of a surreptitious nicotine addiction. Substantial evidence supports the assertion that “[t]here is an epidemic of youth use of e-cigarette products, and flavored products like petitioners’ are at the center of that problem.” View "Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of various offenses relating to his leadership of a drug-trafficking ring, including a charge of distribution of fentanyl resulting in death. On appeal, Defendant advanced three main arguments. First, he contends he was denied his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. Section 3161. Second, he argued the government failed to prove that fentanyl was the but-for cause of the victim’s death and that the district court erred in denying his proposed instruction on but-for causation. Finally, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his other convictions.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court first concluded that the eight-month period between the filing of the indictment and the appearance of Defendant’s codefendant was a “reasonable period of delay” that the district court properly excluded under the Act. Next, the court wrote that on balance, the four constitutional speedy-trial factors weigh in the government’s favor. Thus the court held that the district court didn’t err in denying Defendant’s motion. Further, the court concluded that the jury could have found that “the [fentanyl] was not only a necessary, but-for cause of the death, but it was also independently sufficient, by itself, to cause the victim’s death, even without the influence of any other factors.” As such, while this case may have been more appropriately tried under a but-for causation theory, the court found no reversible error on Count Ten. View "US v. Terrick Robinson" on Justia Law

Appellants, who were maimed in a hot air balloon accident in southeastern Pennsylvania in 2015, pursued appellate challenges to the District of Maryland’s rulings against them and in favor of T.H.E. Insurance Company (the “Insurer”) in an insurance coverage dispute. In federal court proceedings initiated in Maryland, Appellants sued certain of the Insurer’s named insureds, and a business called New Horizon Balloon Team (collectively, the “Insureds”) — for the gruesome injuries Appellants’ sustained in the balloon accident (the “damages lawsuit”). While the damages lawsuit was pending, the Insurer initiated these insurance coverage proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming as defendants the three Insureds, plus Appellants. The district court awarded summary judgment in favor of the Insurer’s contention with respect to a $100,000 coverage limit for each balloon passenger. The Memorandum Opinion also rejected both of Appellants’ bad faith claims. Appellants appealed those rulings.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Applying Maryland principles of res judicata in this dispute, the court was satisfied that the coverage issue presented by the Insurer in these proceedings is not barred by the settlement agreement in the damages lawsuit. As such, the court agreed with the district court that Appellants are not entitled to a summary judgment award on the coverage issue on res judicata grounds. Further, the district court thus did not err in ruling Appellants were inside the balloon’s basket at the time of their injuries. As such, Appellants were “passengers” under the Policy and Coverage B’s limit of $100,000 per passenger applies. View "T.H.E. Insurance Company v. Melyndia Davis" on Justia Law

K.I., a minor who lives in Durham, North Carolina, was diagnosed with a variety of learning and psycho-social disorders. Dissatisfied with her school’s response to her request for special education services, K.I. and her mother J.I. asked for and received a hearing under North Carolina’s administrative procedures. Because they disagreed with the hearing decision, K.I. and J.I. tried to appeal it administratively. But their appeal was not considered because K.I. and J.I. did not follow North Carolina’s rules for filing appeals. K.I. and J.I. sued in federal court under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”). The district court found that K.I. and J.I.’s failure to properly appeal under North Carolina’s administrative rules meant that they had not exhausted their administrative remedies. So, it dismissed the federal action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. K.I. and J.I.’s appeal of that decision.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that it agreed with the district court because K.I. and J.I. did not challenge the court’s ruling on the ADA and Section 504 claims; the issue is waived. Second, the court found that the district court correctly analyzed these claims. Both the ADA and Section 504 claims sought relief due to the alleged failure of Durham Public Schools and the State Board to provide a FAPE to K.I. Thus, under Fry, the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement applied to those claims. The court also affirmed the district court in dismissing the ADA and Section 504 claims. View "K.I. v. Durham Public Schools Board" on Justia Law

Defendant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence. Defendant claimed that her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress information obtained from a search warrant that relied, in part, on the Government’s warrantless procurement of certain data from her cell phone service provider.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that because the Government relied in good faith on court orders issued in accordance with the Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. Section 2703 et. seq., did not request the data in its subpoenas, and the use of a subpoena to obtain the data was lawful at the time; the court held the district court’s admission of the challenged evidence must be sustained. Thus, any motion to suppress filed before Defendant’s trial would not have been meritorious. View "US v. Gloria Taylor" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant on two counts of lying to the FBI, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). The district court sentenced him to concurrent 60-month prison terms. On appeal, Defendant challenged (1) the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss Count Two of his indictment as multiplicitous, (2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, (3) the district court’s allegedly prejudicial statements to the jury, (4) the district court’s refusal to give an entrapment instruction, and (5) the district court’s application of a terrorism enhancement at sentencing.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss Count Two, vacated the judgment, and remanded for resentencing. The court otherwise affirmed. The court concluded that Defendant’s false statements denying relevant knowledge could have influenced the FBI’s investigation. The court further wrote that Defendant claims the district court erred in applying the terrorism enhancement because it failed to expressly find specific intent. However, the court explained it need not delve into this question given that the court is remanding for resentencing because of the district court’s error on multiplicity. On remand, the district court can address the merits of Defendant’s claim regarding the terrorism enhancement. View "US v. Alexander Smith" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned or review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final removal order under 8 U.S.C. Section 1252. The Board held that Petitioner, as the recipient of a K-1 nonimmigrant visa, couldn’t adjust status to that of a conditional permanent resident without an affidavit of support from her former husband, who originally petitioned for her K-1 visa.   The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding that the Board’s decision to be reasonable under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The court held that the Board didn’t act arbitrarily or capriciously by hewing to a regulatory provision that applies on its face, even if another (facially inapplicable) provision might have better protected Petitioner’s reliance interests.   Petitioner’s petition also seeks review of the Board’s refusal to reopen her removal proceedings so she could introduce a document entitled “Questions and Answers: USCIS— American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Meeting,” dated October 9, 2012. Petitioner suggested that this document supported her argument that subsection (f)(1) (and not (f)(2)) should apply to K-1 beneficiaries’ adjustment applications, such that a petitioner couldn’t withdraw a Form I-864 once the K-1 beneficiary has entered the United States. The document doesn’t render the Board’s decision unreasonable. At oral argument, both parties agreed that the document is ambiguous as to whether it truly reflected USCIS’s position in 2012. But even if it did, the Board’s later precedential decision in Petitioner’s case binds USCIS employees. View "Sothon Song v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to a drug offense and a related firearms offense in violation of federal law. He was sentenced as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines based on two prior state convictions: a 2007 conviction for assault with intent to kill (AWIK) and a 2013 conviction for what the district court determined was possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute (PWID). On appeal, Defendant challenged his career-offender status and the resulting sentence. He first argued that the district court erred in relying on inconclusive state-court sentencing documents to find that Defendant’s 2013 drug conviction was, in fact, a conviction for PWID. Second, Defendant questions whether his 2007 AWIK conviction remains a Guidelines crime of violence following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Borden v. United States. 
 The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that the district court did not err in relying on Defendant’s state-court sentencing sheet to determine that his 2013 conviction qualified as a controlled substance offense. And because Defendant did not contest that his AWIK conviction qualified as a predicate offense in his initial briefing with this Court, that argument is waived. View "US v. Cory Boyd" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s order denying his First Step Act motion, which asked the court to reduce his completed sentence of incarceration or retroactively declare that he is a misdemeanant rather than a felon. Insofar as Defendant has moved for a reduction of his already-completed sentence, his request is moot because he has no continuing interest in serving less time on a sentence that he is no longer serving.   The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court with directions that it be dismissed. The court explained that insofar as Defendant has moved for a reduction of his already-completed sentence, his request is moot because he has no continuing interest in serving less time on a sentence that he is no longer serving. Insofar as Defendant has moved for a retroactive reclassification of his offense from a felony to a misdemeanor, the court was powerless to grant relief because no statute authorized such reclassification. View "US v. Darwyn Payne" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on one count of unlawfully possessing a firearm. The firearms at issue were uncovered during a traffic stop. Defendant was traveling in the backseat of a vehicle when the vehicle was stopped by the officer for having an inoperable taillight. After printing a warning citation for the driver, the officer used his canine to sniff around the vehicle and then conducted a full search when the dog alerted, uncovering two firearms in Defendant’s backpack. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of the firearms, concluding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop and conduct the search.   On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by (1) denying her motion to transfer the proceedings to another district pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(a) and (2) finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, vacated Defendant’s conviction and sentence, and remanded to the district court. The court held that (1) Defendant’s motion to transfer was appropriately denied and (2) the officer lacked a reasonable, articulable factual basis for extending the traffic stop to conduct the dog sniff. View "US v. Teresa Miller" on Justia Law