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

In this direct appeal from the Bankruptcy Court, the court addressed whether, in light of the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 101 et seq., codified by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA), Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23, the absolute priority rule continued to apply to individual debtors in possession proceeding under Chapter 11. The court answered in the affirmative. The court concluded that the absolute priority rule as it applied to individual debtors in Chapter 11 had not been abrogated by BAPCPA and affirmed the bankruptcy court's order denying plan confirmation. View "In Re: Ganess Maharaj" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Virginia non-profit corporation organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, commenced this action against the Commission and the Department of Justice, contending that it was "chilled" from posting information about then-Senator Obama because of the vagueness of a Commission regulation and a Commission policy relating to whether plaintiff had to make disclosures or was a "political committee." Plaintiff asserted that it was not subject to regulation but feared the Commission could take steps to regulate it because of the vagueness of 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) and the policy of the Commission to determine whether an organization was a political action committee by applying the "major purpose" test on a case-by-case basis. Plaintiff alleged that the regulation and policy were unconstitutionally broad and vague, both facially and as applied to it, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments. The court applied the "exacting scrutiny" standard applicable to disclosure provisions and affirmed the district court's finding that both the regulation and the policy were constitutional. View "The Real Truth About Abortion, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission" on Justia Law

After Racheal Wilson, a new recruit for the Baltimore City Fire Department, tragically died during a "live burn" training exercise, her survivors and estate commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, alleging that the fire department violated Wilson's substantive due process rights by staging the exercise with deliberate indifference to her safety, so as to shock the conscience. The court concluded that because the complaint did not purport to allege that the fire department staged the live burn training exercise with the purpose of causing harm to Wilson or to any other recruit, it fell short of alleging a substantive due process violation in the context of the facts alleged, even though it might well allege causes of action under state law, as the complaint purported to do in other counts. View "Slaughter v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore" on Justia Law

Alpha sued defendants, foreign corporations, alleging that defendants conspired to steal its tire blueprints, produce infringing tires, and sell them to entities that had formerly purchased products from Alpha. A jury found in favor of Alpha on all claims and the district court upheld the damages award against defendants' post-trial challenges. Defendants subsequently appealed, contesting the verdict and the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. The court initially held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over defendants. The court affirmed the district court's judgment that defendants were liable to Alpha under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and for conversion under Virginia law, but the court dismissed the remaining theories of liability submitted to the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the jury's damages award. Finally, the court vacated the district court's award of attorneys' fees. View "Tire Engineering and Distribution, LLC. v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate, appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Plaintiff asserted that the North Carolina Department of Corrections at Alexander Correctional Institute's failure to enforce its grooming policy put inmates at risk for contracting various infections. Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, despite the fact that the district court's dismissal of the underlying claim was plaintiff's third dismissal for failure to state a claim. Because counting the district court's dismissal as a third strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) would effectively insulate the dismissal from appellate review, the court granted plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP on appeal. View "Henslee v. Keller, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of various offenses stemming from an extensive mortgage fraud conspiracy. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's evidentiary rulings, loss calculation, and order directing him to reimburse his court-appointed attorneys' fees. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on the first two issues, but vacated the court's reimbursement order. Defendant also argued that his money laundering convictions must be reversed under United States v. Santos. Applying Santos, as interpreted by United States v. Halstead, to the facts underlying defendant's substantive money laundering convictions, the court agreed and therefore reversed those convictions. View "United States v. Cloud" on Justia Law

In this purported class action on behalf of borrowers holding home mortgage loans serviced by Bayview, plaintiffs claimed that Bayview improperly added fees to borrowers' accounts in violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act, W. Va. Code 46A-1-101 through 46A-8-102. At issue was whether, under the statute of limitations, "the due date of the last scheduled payment of the agreement" was June 5, 2007, the loan acceleration date set by Bayview. The court concluded that the acceleration date was the operative date for purposes of applying the statute of limitations, because no further payments were scheduled after that date. Thus, the court affirmed the district court's judgment that the statute of limitations began to run from the acceleration date, and that, therefore, plaintiffs' claims were time barred. View "Delebreau v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC" on Justia Law

Former Shareholders of Tarcon filed petitions in the Tax Court contesting the Commissioner's notices of transferee liability. The Tax Court ruled in favor of the Former Shareholders, applying Commissioner v. Stern, holding that the Commissioner could only collect from the Former Shareholders if, under North Carolina law, a Tarcon creditor could recover payments of Tarcon's debts from the Former Shareholders. The court concluded that the Tax Court properly identified and applied the controlling legal framework as set forth in Stern and it did not commit clear error in its factual findings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of the Former Shareholders. View "Starnes v. Commissioner, IRS; Stroupe v. Commissioner, IRS; Naples v. Commissioner, IRS; Morelli, Sr. v. Commissioner, IRS" on Justia Law