U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

The court held that Townsen knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal his convictions and sentence, so his challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence was barred.

The court affirmed Williams's conviction for possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon. It held that circuit precedent foreclosed his as-applied Second Amendment challenge, that the investigative stop and vehicle search were supported by reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and that the Speedy Trial Act clock…

The court remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose of deciding Henderson’s Rule 60(b) motion. Henderson supplied proof after filing her appeal that she had paid the filing fee, and the district court indicated that it would likely grant relief but lacked jurisdiction while the appeal was pending.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Monica Ussery’s second amended complaint arising from her arrest at an April 2020 protest. The court concluded that Ussery had not established any reversible error in challenging the dismissal of her conspiracy and constitutional-violation claims, the grant of qualified…

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury's verdict on Billesdon's ADA retaliation claim, holding that a compressed termination timeline, changed treatment, and decision-makers' hostility after learning of his remote-work request let a reasonable jury find the request was the but-for cause of his discharge, and it affirmed…

The court affirmed the denial of Haggerty's motion to dismiss his indictment and his resulting sentence. It held that his as-applied challenge to the felon-in-possession prohibition was foreclosed by circuit precedent, and therefore did not decide whether the domestic-violence misdemeanor prohibition independently…

The court affirmed the denial of Watts's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of his residence. It held that a supervised-release condition permitting warrantless searches upon reasonable suspicion is valid under the Fourth Amendment and that the probation officer had reasonable suspicion…

On remand, the court again affirmed Richardson’s 240-month sentence, holding that his plea-agreement appeal waiver was valid, covered his challenge to the firearm enhancement, and was not defeated by the asserted miscarriage-of-justice exception.

The court affirmed summary judgment for Howard County on Whittaker's ADEA age-discrimination claim. Applying de novo review and the McDonnell Douglas framework, it held that Whittaker did not establish a prima facie case because the record showed he was not meeting the Department's legitimate expectations regarding…

The court affirmed summary judgment for the officers on Hayat’s Fourth Amendment claim. It held that the officers had reasonable suspicion of a possible child kidnapping, initiated a Terry stop before Hayat retreated into his home, and could continue the stop inside without a warrant because the retreat and concern…

The court denied Central Appalachian Coal Company’s petition for review and upheld the award of black lung benefits to Richard Estudillo. It held that substantial evidence supported the findings that Estudillo had legal pneumoconiosis arising from coal mine employment and that the disease substantially contributed to…

The court affirmed judgment for Costco after concluding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Alcantar failed to prove the Costco employee agreed to lift the grill box and then failed to do so.

The court affirmed Jones’s 10-month revocation sentence and 26 months of supervised release. It held that the district court adequately explained the sentence, considered the relevant sentencing factors and Chapter Seven policy statements, addressed Jones’s mitigation arguments, and explained the need for additional…

The court affirmed Disomma’s convictions and life sentence arising from his efforts to arrange sexual activity with fictitious minors created by an undercover officer. It held that the investigation was not outrageous, that the evidence did not warrant an entrapment instruction, and that Disomma failed to establish…

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful-death and personal-injury actions. It held that diversity jurisdiction existed because the deceased foreign citizen's nominal administrator was disregarded and the South Korean statutory beneficiaries were treated as the real parties in interest.

On remand, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for renewed briefing and reaffirmed that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims. Because a court lacking jurisdiction cannot enter a merits judgment, the court modified the disposition to a dismissal without prejudice.

The court affirmed dismissal of Levine's negligence action because she failed to timely serve Yankee Candle under Maryland law, despite a later reissuance of process and eventual service.

The court granted the petition for review, vacated the agency orders denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, and remanded for further proceedings. It held that the IJ and BIA failed to meaningfully consider significant evidence, address one of Serrano's asylum theories, and provide reasoned…

The court granted White's petition for review because an intervening decision undermined the agency's categorical determination that his Virginia firearm conviction was a crime of violence and aggravated felony.

The Fourth Circuit denied George Branham’s request for a certificate of appealability concerning his federal habeas petition, which raised ten ineffective-assistance claims. The court concluded that Branham failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and adopted the reasoning of the…

The Fourth Circuit affirmed judgment for the defendants in two wrongful-death and personal-injury actions arising from an unwitnessed head-on collision. It held that diversity jurisdiction existed because the decedent was a South Korean citizen, the nominal administrator's citizenship was disregarded, and the South…

The Fourth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction requiring DHS to follow its prior guidelines when conducting immigration-enforcement actions at or near the plaintiffs’ houses of worship.

The court affirmed Anthony Williams's convictions for cocaine-distribution offenses and his concurrent 360-month sentences. It rejected all five claims of error, concluding from its review of the record and briefs that no reversible error occurred.

The court held that South Carolina's age-based absentee-by-mail voting scheme violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment because it gives voters aged sixty-five and older unconditional access while requiring younger voters to satisfy excuses, documentation requirements, and deadlines.

The court affirmed a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from importing, advertising, selling, or facilitating the sale of foreign-market Gilead medications in the United States.

The court affirmed a preliminary injunction barring the appellants from importing, advertising, selling, or facilitating the sale of foreign-market Gilead-branded medications in the United States.

The court affirmed a preliminary injunction barring the appellants from importing, advertising, selling, or facilitating the sale of foreign-market Gilead-branded medications in the United States.

The court affirmed a preliminary injunction barring the appellants from advertising, selling, or facilitating the sale of imported Gilead-branded medications in the United States.

The court upheld the validity of Hughes's guilty plea and appellate waiver after finding that the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 and that Hughes knowingly and intelligently waived his appellate rights.

The court affirmed Haburn’s felon-in-possession conviction and sentence. It held that police did not unlawfully extend the traffic stop and had reasonable suspicion to frisk Haburn, and it upheld the sentencing cross-reference to attempted murder because the district court did not clearly err in finding the requisite…

The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 4243 permits revocation of a conditional discharge only when the acquittee fails to comply with a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, not merely an ancillary release condition.

The court denied Greenbrier Minerals’ petition for review of the Benefits Review Board’s affirmance of an administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits. It held that the agency decision was supported by substantial evidence and contained no reversible error.

The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of Hicks and Mendoza. It held that Hicks knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and unequivocally waived counsel, and that the district court did not plainly err by declining to order a competency evaluation.

The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Moore’s motion for reconsideration and subsequent motion for compassionate release. It held that the district court acted within its discretion in rejecting reconsideration and in finding that Moore had not established extraordinary and compelling reasons for release.

The court held that the warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause to search the residence because it did not connect the alleged drug activity to that particular home and relied on stale or isolated facts.

The court dismissed Herrington's appeal because he did not obtain a certificate of appealability and failed to make the required substantial showing of a constitutional-right violation.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the plaintiffs' purely legal challenge to the government's authority to execute removal orders during the provisional-waiver process.

The court vacated Franklin’s 48-month sentence because the district court applied a firearm enhancement without making factual findings connecting the firearm to either the theft or stolen-mail possession offenses.

The court affirmed Mendoza’s convictions and sentence, rejecting her challenges to the admission of a victim’s remote deposition, the sufficiency of the wire-fraud evidence, her presence at sentencing, and the upward sentence imposed above the Guidelines range.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the plaintiffs' legal challenge to the government's authority to execute removal orders during the provisional-waiver process. It vacated summary judgment for the plaintiffs because the governing regulations do not bar arrest, detention, or removal during that process…