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

Oceanpro, a seafood wholesaler, and two Oceanpro employees, Timothy Lydon and Benjamin Clough, III, were convicted for purchasing untagged and oversized striped bass. Oceanpro and Clough were also convicted for giving a false statement to federal law enforcement officers during the course of the investigation of the crimes. On appeal, Oceanpro and Clough challenged the District of Maryland's venue for the false statement offense because the false statement was made at the offices of Oceanpro in the District of Columbia, not in Maryland. In addition, all defendants contended that the order of restitution to the States was improper because the States did not have a sufficient interest in the illegally caught fish so as to make them "victims" as was required for receiving the benefit of a restitution order. The court rejected both arguments, concluding that venue for the false statement charge was proper in the District of Maryland and that Maryland and Virginia's interest in striped bass was sufficient to make the States "victims" and therefore to justify an award to them of restitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Oceanpro Ind., Ltd.; United States v. Clough; United States v. Lydon" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of falsely representing himself to be a U.S. citizen in violation of 18 U.S.C. 911 and of committing identity theft in relation to a false claim of U.S. citizenship in violation of 19 U.S.C. 1028A. At issue was what could constitute a claim of citizenship under section 911. The court held that the "cumulative context" provided a substantial foundation for the jury's conclusion of willful misrepresentation and the jury's verdict was consistent with decisions in other circuits that required a direct claim of U.S. citizenship to sustain a conviction under section 911. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Castillo-Pena" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a minor, sustained serious injuries at birth due to the negligence of medical professionals who attended her delivery. As a result of plaintiff's injuries, DHHS, through the state Medicaid program, paid more than $1.9 million in medical and health care expenses on her behalf. Plaintiff instituted a medical malpractice action in state court and eventually settled the action for a lump some of approximately $2.8 million. The settlement agreement did not allocate separate amounts for past medical expenses and other damages. DHHS subsequently asserted a statutory lien on the settlement proceedings pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat 108A-57 and 59 (third-party liability statues), which asserted that North Carolina had a subrogation right and could assert a lien upon the lesser of its actual medical expenditures or one-third of the medicaid recipient's total recovery. Plaintiff brought the instant action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking to forestall payment under federal Medicaid law known as the "anti-lien provision," 42 U.S.C. 1396p. The court was persuaded that the unrebuttable presumption inherent in the one-third cap on the state's recovery imposed by the North Carolina third-party liability statutes was in fatal conflict with federal law. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment in favor of the Secretary and remanded for further proceedings. View "E.M.A v. Cansler" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following remand for sentencing where defendant's convictions arose from his participation in a telemarketing sweepstakes scheme in Costa Rica. The court held that it need not resolve whether the district court erred in concluding that it was barred from reconsidering the Sentencing Guidelines calculation, because even if the court assumed that the district court erred in this respect, that error was harmless under the facts of the case. The court also held that, given the totality of the district court's statements, defendant's sentence was not improperly based on his decision to go to trial or as a result of his successful appeal of his original sentence. Finally, the court held that defendant's sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Susi" on Justia Law

The Board rejected the application of AT&T to build an 88-foot telecommunications tower in a residential neighborhood, a decision which AT&T later challenged in the District Court. The district court determined that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision and that the Board's ruling did not effectively prohibit wireless services under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 322(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and (B)(iii). The court found that the Board's denial of AT&T's application had substantial support in the record as a whole and complied with the substantial evidence requirement of subsection (B)(iii). Based on the failure of proof by AT&T, the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the Board on AT&T's claim that the Board's denial of its application violated subsection (B)(i)(II) of the Act. View "New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. The Fairfax Cty. Bd. of Supervisors" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate, filed a complaint in state court against defendants, contending that defendants engaged in a campaign of harassment against him and asserted several claims against them, including violations of his federal constitutional rights. Following defendants' removal to federal district court, the district court remanded the case to state court, in part based on plaintiff's status as a "three-strikes" prisoner due to his frequent legal filings. Because the court found that the district court lacked a statutory or legal basis to remand plaintiff's action to state court, the court reversed the order and reinstated plaintiff's complaint for further proceedings. View "Lisenby, Jr. v. Lear, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this action, alleging that her former employer, the County, unlawfully discriminated against her by offering her a less favorable severance package than that offered to male employees holding similar positions. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint on the theory that the discriminatory denial of a non-contractual employment benefit could not constitute an adverse employment action; the district court's alternative rationale for dismissing the complaint, that she suffered no adverse employment action because the County fired her before it made its allegedly discriminatory offer, also failed because it ignored the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and because Title VII protects both current and former employees from discriminatory adverse employment actions. The court granted leave to the district court to consider, in the first instance, two additional arguments raised by the County. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Gerner v. County of Chesterfield, VA" on Justia Law

A Pentagon police officer allegedly assaulted plaintiff, a contract security officer assigned to the Pentagon, while they were stationed at a security checkpoint for Pentagon employees. Plaintiff sued the United States for assault under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2680(h), and the district court granted summary judgment to the United States. The court held that section 2680(h) waived the United States' sovereign immunity regardless of whether an officer was engaged in an investigative or law enforcement activity when he committed an assault. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ignacio v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a citizen of the Philippines, brought suit against defendants for damages arising from severe injuries he sustained aboard the M/V Asian Spirit in the Chesapeake Bay near Baltimore. Plaintiff's complaint alleged multiple clams against defendants, including unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, breach of contract, violation of the Seaman's Wage Act, 46 U.S.C. 10313(i), and negligence under general maritime law and the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 30104. The court affirmed the district court's judgment that the Arbitration Clause at issue was enforceable and that plaintiff must arbitrate his claims against defendants in the Philippines. Nevertheless, the court vacated the dismissal of the case and remanded for reinstatement thereof, for assessment of the injunction request, for entry of a stay pending arbitration to ensure that plaintiff would have an opportunity at the award-enforcement stage for judicial review of his public policy defense based on the prospective waiver doctrine, and for such other and further proceedings. View "Aggarao, Jr. v. Mol Ship Mgmt. Co." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a dispute between incumbent local exchange carriers that provide service in rural areas of North Carolina (RLECs) and commercial mobile radio service providers (CMRS Providers) in North Carolina. The CMRS Providers filed a complaint in the district court against the RLECs and the Commissioners of the NCUC in their official capacities, seeking review of several determinations made by the NCUC and, ultimately, the approval of portions of the interconnection agreements (ICA). The district court subsequently denied the CMRS Providers' motion for summary judgment and granted the RLECs' and the NCUC's motions for summary judgment. The district court also affirmed the NCUC's Filing of Composite Agreements (FAO) and approval order. Because the court ultimately agreed with the arguments advanced by the RLECs and the NCUC, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, et al. v. Finley, Jr., et al." on Justia Law