Richmond, VA

Whether the immigration judge's failure to advise alien of the possible relief of voluntary departure invalidates the removal order; related issues.

Whether defendant preserved objections to magistrate judge's summary contempt order.

Whether district court erred by dismissing claims that prepublication review policies of federal agencies violated First and Fifth Amendments; standing.

Whether this Court retains jurisdiction to review agency's hardship determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

Whether district court erred in admitting defendant's recorded telephone conversations; other issues.

Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims.

Whether counsel was ineffective in removal proceedings; whether denial of motion to reopen was abuse of discretion.

Whether district court erred by concluding that statements were defamatory per se; additional issues related to personal jurisdiction, excessive damages, and attorney's fees.

Propriety of denying relief based on failure to proffer family members' corroborating statements when circuit precedent supports the agency discrediting the same; other issues.

Whether Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019), calls into question state's Eleventh immunity against takings claims.

Whether single death threat by armed gang members amounts to past persecution.

Propriety of district court's dismissal of qui tam action under False Claims Act alleging fraudulent conduct by government contractor.

Whether Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(e), bars federal government from removing state air-pollution enforcement action to federal court; other issues.

Whether petitioner's constitutional rights were violated by the delay in adjudicating direct appeal, trial court's coercive remarks to the jury, and prosecutor's closing arguments.

Whether court erred by permitting attorney to represent Government witness when Defendant had been represented by attorney in same office on related matters; other issues.

Whether Defendants had duty to warn Plaintiff of danger of developing sinonasal cancer from exposure to wood dust; other issues.

Appeal from dismissal of qui tam action under False Claims Act alleging that adult care homes committed fraud related to claims for personal care services.

Whether district court adjudicated Hixson's deliberate indifference claim as it pertained to Moran's failure to prescribe non-insulin medication; other issues.

Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1621 may be enforced by private litigants under Maryland's taxpayer-standing doctrine; subject matter jurisdiction; additional issues.

Whether ordinance prohibiting public display of female breast is constitutional; evidentiary and other issues related to grant of summary judgment in city's favor.

Whether the district court erred in granting Defendant summary judgment on Plaintiff's disability discrimination and retaliation claims; other issues.

Whether district court violated Sixth Amendment by failing to appoint replacement counsel at plea withdrawal hearing.

Propriety of district court's determination that Takings Clause was not implicated because defendant was exercising police power and not power of eminent domain.

Whether appellant was ineligible for civil commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 because government's commitment certificate was untimely; application of United States v. Wayda, 966 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 2020).

Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment to Defendant insurer on Plaintiff's claims that insurer misrepresented or concealed the at-fault party's identity.

Whether district court erred by finding that medical providers had standing to challenge constitutionality of state statute restricting access to abortions after twenty weeks.

Whether substantial evidence supports the finding that the particular social group is not socially distinct; related issues.

Whether interested stakeholder's citizenship may be used to create diversity for jurisdictional purposes in statutory interpleader suit.

Whether district court erred in dismissing prisoner's complaint challenging denial of in-person visitation with his minor daughter.

Challenge to district court's order approving certification of the direct purchaser class in pharmaceutical antitrust case.

Whether counsel was ineffective for allowing jury instruction that included crime that was not lesser included offense of charged crime; other issues.

Applicability of West Virginia's certificate-of-merit requirement to FTCA medical negligence claim; propriety of grant of summary judgment to Defendants on inmate's deliberate indifference claim.

Cross-appeals challenging district court's orders upholding jury's verdict on breach-of-contract claim and denying request for rescission of contract; statute of limitations.

Conflict of interest and ineffective assistance of counsel challenges to state capital conviction and sentence.

Whether seizure of drugs from vehicle stopped to execute immigration warrant violated Fourth Amendment; other issues.

Whether previously dismissed counts were properly reinstated under 18 U.S.C. § 3296; sufficiency of the evidence.

Propriety of determination that Title IX was not a "law providing for equal rights" that would provide basis for removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2).

Whether the district court erred in determining that the vulnerable victim sentencing enhancement applied; related issues.

Whether district's standard conditions of supervised release, including special conditions listed in USSG § 5G1.3, were sufficiently narrowly tailored to appellant's circumstances.

Whether special condition of supervised release constitutes unlawful delegation of judicial authority; other issues.

Whether district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over challenge to West Virginia's ballot order statute based on justiciability and standing; whether statute is unconstitutional.

Whether court erred in denying motion to dismiss indictment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d).

Whether district court failed to make individual assessment when imposing sentence; other issues.