Henry F. Floyd

How Judge Floyd rules, drawn from 59 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Barack Obama (Democratic)
Commissioned
2011-10-05
Education
Wofford College (B.A., 1970); University of South Carolina School of Law (J.D., 1973)
Signed orders read
59

How Judge Floyd decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

A statutory argument prevailed where the opposing interpretation added a contextual requirement that Congress did not include in the operative text.

“Notably absent is language requiring an officer to commit the tort in the course of an investigative or law enforcement activity or, for that matter, any language regarding the context in which an officer must commit the tort.”

Guideline selection followed the elements charged in the indictment rather than uncharged conduct or a more convenient offense characteristic.

“Simply put, where an indictment omits an element of an offense, the guideline corresponding to that offense is inapplicable, even if the alternative guideline’s provisions do not account for certain details that the indictment charges.”

A torture-risk claim required the decisionmaker to combine risks from every source and meaningfully address the full supporting record rather than evaluate each threat separately.

“We now join our sister circuits and hold that the risks of torture from all sources should be combined when determining whether a CAT applicant is more likely than not to be tortured in a particular country.”

At the preliminary-injunction stage, Floyd required factual evidence supporting the proposed antitrust market rather than an expert's interpretation of older cases and outdated market assumptions.

“We are merely holding that the Players presented no factual evidence here and therefore clearly failed to meet their burden of proof.”

Procedural preferences

Only named defendants could be considered when applying the local-controversy exception before certification; absent proposed class members were not yet parties.

“An unnamed member of a proposed but uncertified class is not a party to the litigation.”

Criminal interlocutory review required every element of the collateral-order doctrine and could not be justified by balancing the interests involved.

“This is not a balancing test; to fall within the collateral order doctrine, a trial court order must satisfy each condition.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

United States v. Strieper
10-5060 · 2012-01-23
Appeal (Defendant-Appellant Alan Paul Strieper) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.”

Ignacio v. United States
· 2012-03-16
Appeal (Plaintiff-Appellant Nicholas Ignacio (contract security officer)) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.”

United States v. Kendrick Crawford
12-4531 · 2013-11-01
Appeal (Defendant-Appellant Kendrick O'Brian Crawford) Denied

“We therefore affirm his sentence.”

United States v. Austin Webb, Jr.
12-4856 · 2013-12-19
Appeal (Defendant-Appellant Austin Romaine Webb, Jr.) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”

Quicken Loans Incorporated v. Phillip Alig
12-342; 13-1073; 13-1077 · 2013-12-19
Appeal (Defendant-Appellant Quicken Loans (petitioner appealing the remand order)) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court remanding this case to state court is vacated and this action is remanded for a determination by the district court as to whether the named defendant appraisers satisfy the ‘at least 1 defendant’ requirement of the local controversy exception.”

United States v. Freddie Grant
13-4302 · 2014-06-03
Appeal (Defendant-Appellant Freddie Grant) Denied

“We therefore affirm Grant's sentence.”

Bostic v. Schaefer
· 2014-07-28
Appeal (Defendants-appellants George E. Schaefer, III (Clerk of the Norfolk Circuit Court) and intervenor-defendant Michele B. McQuigg (Prince William County Clerk)) Denied

“We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and its decision to enjoin enforcement of the Virginia Marriage Laws. ... AFFIRMED.”

United States v. Dwaine Collins
14-4019 · 2014-12-08
Appeal (Defendant-Appellant Dwaine Allen Collins) Granted in part

“For the reasons provided above, we affirm Collins's conviction and his term of imprisonment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion as to his term of supervised release.”

Joseph Antonio v. SSA Security, Inc.
13-1031 · 2015-04-03
Appeal (Plaintiffs-Appellants (the Homeowners; 30 arson victims)) Denied

“Thus, we affirm, in full, the district court's grant of summary judgment in SSA's favor.”

United States v. Richard Adams
13-7107 · 2016-02-19
Appeal (defendant-appellant (Richard Lee Adams)) Granted

“We vacate Adams’s § 922(g) conviction and its attendant sentence and special assessment. We direct the entry of judgment in favor of Adams on his § 2255 motion without remand. VACATED”

United States v. Ernest Williams, Jr.
15-4217 · 2016-11-10
Appeal (Defendant-Appellant Ernest Lee Williams, Jr.) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we vacate Williams's sentence, and remand this case to the district court for resentencing under the burglary guideline.”

United States v. Brandon Tate
15-4252 · 2017-01-11
Appeal (defendant-appellant (Brandon Tate)) Denied

“Accordingly, the judgment below is AFFIRMED.”

Draft for Judge Floyd with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Floyd, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Floyd's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace