Richmond, VA

Whether petitioner failed to establish that Honduran government was unwilling or unable to protect her.

Whether petitioner demonstrated that imputed anti-gang political opinion was one central reason for her past persecution; other issues.

Whether substantial evidence supports the Board's denial of reopening based on changed country conditions; related issues.

Whether district court erred by dismissing FTCA action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to an exception to FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity.

Whether the district court erred in construing contract provisions defining products subject to royalty payments.

Whether district court correctly applied West Virginia pattern jury instructions in products liability case; other issues.

Whether district court erroneously granted summary judgment on Plaintiff's retaliation and wage disparity discrimination claims; other issues.

Whether South Carolina statute of repose for improvements to real property bars product liability claim arising from injury caused by industrial equipment.

Whether district court erred in denying motion to suppress based on finding of reasonable, articulable suspicion.

Whether cross-designated agency's knowledge of alien's presence can be imputed to the United States for purpose of statute of limitations on illegal reentry prosecution.

Whether the ALJ's decision not to include an absenteeism limitation in Appellant's RFC is supported by substantial evidence; other issues. (15 mins.)

Whether, under PLRA, incarcerated plaintiffs with disabilities must exhaust both BOP grievance process and EEO complaint procedure before bringing Rehabilitation Act claim.

Whether court properly denied qualified immunity to officer who, during welfare check, directed dog to bite plaintiff for refusing to comply with orders.

Whether the limitations imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) on previously-presented claims apply to motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Whether the district court properly granted Defendant summary judgment on Plaintiff's implied warranty of merchantability and negligent failure to warn products liability claims.

Challenge to Virginia State Water Control Board's issuance of § 401 water quality certification for pipeline's in-stream construction.

Timeliness of appellant's Johnson/Davis challenge; validity of appellant's 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), (j)(1) convictions following Davis; other issues.

Challenge to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of attorney's contract and quasi-contract claims against former clients; other related issues.

Propriety of decision granting summary judgment to school district in IDEA case.

Whether substantial evidence supports ALJ's rejection of consultative examiner's opinion as to applicant's need for assistive device. (15 mins.)

Whether material factual dispute should have precluded summary judgment in action regarding Sheet Metal Wkrs' Hlth & Welfare. v Stromberg multiemployer pension funding.

Whether district court erred in dismissing active Maryland state employees from Plaintiffs' action challenging State of Maryland's changes to prescription drug coverage for retirees.

Interlocutory challenge to partial summary judgment and injunction requiring defendants to reinstate provision in state health plan providing medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria.

Whether Petitioner's particular social group is cognizable as a matter of law; related issues.

Whether district court erred in ordering new trial, concluding that convictions were against the weight of the evidence.

Jurisdiction to review untimely asylum application; whether substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection.

Whether the movant's allegation of recovered memory qualifies as newly-discovered evidence warranting authorization to file a successive petition.

Whether Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-53.1 offenses are ACCA violent felonies; whether Defendant's Virginia robbery convictions remain ACCA violent felonies after United States v. White, 24 F.4th

Whether 26 U.S.C. 7502's provisions related to mailed tax returns supplant the common-law mailbox rule.

Whether university's nonrenewal of faculty member's term, the year after her promotion to full professor, was based on age discrimination; whether ministerial exception applies.

Whether substantial evidence supports ALJ's rulings as to Appellant's limitations on three of the Paragraph B criteria; other issues.

Whether district court properly construed Petitioner's second claim for habeas relief, which related to state agency's prior parole ineligibility determination; other related issues.

Challenge to grant of summary judgment; whether ALJ's final decision regarding student's IEP was "regularly made" and thus due deference in the district court.

Whether employees breached duty of loyalty by submitting a competing proposal for a project on which their employer submitted a bid.

Whether the district court's holding - that Rehaif was not a potentially viable basis for federal habeas relief from § 922(g) conviction - is debatable.

Whether district court erred concluding mall owner and security company had no duty to protect mall patrons from shooting in parking lot.

Whether appellant lacked standing to bring housing discrimination suit against housing providers who steered Facebook ads away from people in her age group.

Whether district court erred in determining that unpaid leave was a reasonable accommodation for a workplace injury under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Challenge to dismissal of plaintiff's RICO claims and denial of leave to amend complaint related to telephone services for inmates.

Whether sentencing package doctrine and nonretroactive Sentencing Guidelines amendments apply in First Step Act resentencing; disclosure requirements for First Step Act Worksheet; other issues.

Whether Bivens claims for failure to protect inmate are cognizable following Zigler v. Abbasi; other issues.

Propriety of district court's reliance on police report, not admitted into evidence at suppression hearing, to support reasonable suspicion; whether inventory search was lawful.

Whether Hyde Amendment claim for attorney's fees following acquittal was properly denied based on plaintiff's indictment by grand jury; other issues.

Multiple appeals arising out of involuntary medication orders and detention of pretrial committee whose commitment exceeds limit in 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1).

Whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for Eighth Amendment claim arising from murder of four inmates in one morning; other issues.

Whether public university subjected tenured professor to retaliation for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment.

Challenge to district court order overruling jury's damage award in case arising out of coal silo collapse.

Whether the district court erred in determining that Bivens complaint did not allege with sufficient specificity Defendants' personal knowledge of Plaintiff's medical condition.

Whether Maryland third-degree sexual offense categorically relates to generic predicates in 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2) for enhanced statutory penalties; other issues.

Challenge to district court order enjoining implementation of Corps' plan to bring the Savannah Harbor into compliance with the ESA.

Whether Appellant's upward-variant sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable; other issues.

Whether mens rea of "willfulness" in 18 U.S.C. 1855 extends to the element of government ownership of the subject property.

Whether evidence of victim's age and relationship to defendant was relevant such that its exclusion was an abuse of discretion.

Whether exclusion from jury of non-vaccinated persons violated Sixth Amendment right to a jury venire that represents a cross-§ of society.

Whether the Confrontation Clause was violated when witnesses were ordered to wear masks; related issues.

Sufficiency of court's explanation for denying First Step Act sentence reduction motion; other issues.

Whether district court erred in ruling Appellee's claim was not an improper extension of Bivens remedy; other issues.

Whether there are genuine issues concerning finding that choice to deny assistive walking device in the SHU was a medical decision; related issues.