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

Articles Posted in March, 2013
by
Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and the district court imposed a mandatory life sentence. The court held that, because the district court's FRAP 10 findings were amply supported by the evidence presented at the hearing and enabled defendant to perfect his appeal, the court need not and did not address whether the Court Reporter Act, 28 U.S.C. 753(b), was violated; the district court's admission of the challenged statements was neither erroneous nor an abuse of discretion; and the court rejected defendant's challenge to his mandatory life sentence pursuant to Almendarez-Torres v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Graham" on Justia Law

by
Defendant pled guilty to accessing the internet via computer with the intent to view child pornography. The district court calculated defendant's offense as involving more than 600 images of child pornography, and as a result, imposed a five-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(7)(D). The court held that the district court was true to both the spirit and letter of Section 2G2.2(b)(7) in counting every image sent by defendant to every person when applying the number of images enhancement. The court also held that the district court did not err as a matter of law when it counted each image in each email separately without regard to the uniqueness of the image when applying the Section 2G2.2(b)(7) enhancement. As such, the court affirmed the five-level enhancement and affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Price" on Justia Law

by
This case stemmed from Washington Gas' request to expand a natural gas substation (County Zoning Plans). On appeal, Washington Gas challenged the district court's order dismissing Washington Gas' mandatory referral claim and the district court's subsequent order granting summary judgment on Washington Gas' federal preemption claims. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the mandatory referral claim pursuant to Burford v. Sun Oil; the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act (PSA), 49 U.S.C. 60102, 60104, did not preempt the County Zoning Plans because the PSA only preempted safety regulations and the County Zoning Plans were not safety regulations; and the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717, did not preempt the County Zoning Plans because Washington Gas was a local distributor of natural gas and, therefore, was not subject to the NGA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Washington Gas Light Co. v. Prince George's County Council" on Justia Law

by
This appeal arose from the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint against Home Loan and Deutsche Bank, alleging state law claims based on a mortgage contract. The district court determined that plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Home Owner's Loan Act (HOLA), 12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq., and its implementing regulation, 12 C.F.R. 560.2. The court concluded that plaintiff's allegations supporting her first count - that the mortgage contract was unconscionable - fell under section 560.2(b) and therefore, the court concluded that her claim was preempted and affirmed the dismissal of that claim. However, because plaintiff's state tort claim for fraud only incidentally affected lending, it was not preempted by HOLA or its implementing regulation. Therefore, dismissal of that claim on preemption grounds was unwarranted. Further, the court found no basis for dismissal of plaintiff's fraud count on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds and plaintiff's complaint met the requirements of Rule 9(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "McCauley v. Home Loan Investment Bank, F.S" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff, by and through her parents, sued the school principals and school board pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of her First Amendment right to free speech and expression and her Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. Defendants prohibited plaintiff from wearing and on one occasion punished her for wearing Confederate flag shirts at school. When, as here, student speech threatened to disrupt school, school officials could prohibit or punish that speech. The school officials therefore did not violate plaintiff's First Amendment right when they refused to allow her to wear Confederate flag shirts and protest shirts at school, and the dress codes and their enforcement did not infringe on plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. View "Hardwick v. Heyward" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, asserting, inter alia, that Maryland's good-and-substantial-reason requirement for obtaining a handgun permit contravened the Second Amendment. The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on having "good and substantial reason" to do so. Because the court disagreed with the district court's conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement could not pass constitutional muster, the court reversed the judgment. Under the applicable intermediate scrutiny standard, the State had demonstrated that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement was reasonably adapted to Maryland's significant interests in protecting public safety and preventing crime. The court also rejected plaintiffs' facial challenge. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Woollard v. Gallagher" on Justia Law

by
After being fired by General Dynamics, plaintiff sued the local affiliate, the UAW and UAW's regional office, alleging that two local union officials violated the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 101, 102, 609, by retaliating against her for reporting their supposed misconduct to the regional office. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. While the court thought that the district court ruled too broadly against the speech rights of union members under the LMRDA, the court nonetheless affirmed its judgment on narrower grounds. The content of plaintiff's speech - that the president and vice president viewed pornography on a Union computer on a single occasion - was not a matter of union concern. Plaintiff failed to point to a single action by the Union as a whole, let alone a Union action that was the result of an established Union disciplinary process. View "Trail v. Local 2850 UAW" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff filed a retaliation action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, alleging that defendants, IST and its parent company, EDO, fired plaintiff because he reported IST to the government for what he believed to be fraudulent conduct. IST is a New Hampshire corporation that designs and manufactures counter-improvised explosive devices (C-IEDs) for the government. Plaintiff, hired by IST as an engineer, made complaints regarding what he perceived as the failure of Mobile Multi-Band Jammer systems (MMBJs) devices to function properly at elevated temperatures. The court held that plaintiff's purported investigation activities did not raise a distinct possibility of a viable FCA action and were not protected; the court could not say that IST made a material false certification of compliance with government contracts; and plaintiff's complaint about IST did not raise a distinct possibility of a viable FCA claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Glynn v. EDO Corp." on Justia Law

by
Defendant was convicted of numerous charges arising from a tax fraud scheme operated through his business of preparing income tax returns for private individuals. Defendant appealed. The court held that, although defendant's trial was affected by two errors - the prosecutor's improper statement and the district court's refusal to give the requested character evidence instruction - when considered both individually and cumulatively, did not warrant reversal of defendant's convictions. The court also held that the district court did not improperly restrict defendant's right to testify in his defense and correctly instructed the jury regarding the identity theft offenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff filed a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729, alleging that defendants fraudulently billed the United States for services provided to the military forces serving in Iraq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his complaint with prejudice. Because the court concluded that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and the court found that the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA), 18 U.S.C. 3287, applied to this action, the court reversed. Because it could be appropriate for the district court to make factual findings to consider the public disclosure claim urged by defendants the court remanded so the district court could consider this issue. View "United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co." on Justia Law