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

LG Display sought to appeal the district court's rejection of their assertions of federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332. South Carolina initiated these cases in state court, alleging violations of the State's Antitrust Act and its Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA), S.C. Code 39-3-130, -180. The court concluded that CAFA's minimal diversity requirement was not satisfied in either of these cases, and the district court properly remanded them to state court. Accordingly, the petitions for appeal of LG Display were granted and the Remanded Decisions were affirmed. View "AU Optronics Corp. v. State of South Carolina" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged two convictions for criminal contempt. The court affirmed the first contempt conviction where the record fully supported the judge's findings that defendant's profane language in the courtroom constituted intentional misbehavior that obstructed the administration of justice. Because the second contempt conviction resulted from a summary proceeding erroneously denying defendant his opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, the court concluded that this error affected his substantial rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed in Case No. 11-4963 and reversed in Case No. 11-4965. View "United States v. Peoples" on Justia Law

The Guild purchased twenty-three ancient Chinese and Cypriot coins from a dealer in London and subsequently challenged the seizure of the coins when it attempted to import them. On appeal, the Guild asked the court to engage in a review of the government's implementation of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act's (CPIA), 19 U.S.C. 2601-2613, import restrictions on Chinese and Cypriot cultural property. The court concluded that the suit sought to have the judiciary assume a role that the statute did not intend for the court to assume. The court reviewed the Guild's various claims and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's interpretation of the CPIA and affirmed its grant of the government's motion to dismiss. View "Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, et al." on Justia Law

WMC appealed an amended order and judgment, arguing that the district court improperly used the nunc pro tunc device to extend the period during which plaintiff could refile her dismissed state law claims in state court. Because the district court's purported nunc pro tunc entry supplied an order that in fact was not previously made, the court vacated the amended order and judgment. View "Glynne v. Wilmed Healthcare" on Justia Law

This case presented a challenge to Revenue Ruling 69-59, which limited the ability of federal firearms licenses to sell firearms at out-of-state gun shows. The district court granted the Government's motion to dismiss this action, finding that the statute of limitations barred it. Because the agency published Revenue Ruling 69-59 in 1969, the six-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. 2401(a) has long since expired. Plaintiffs' contention that their cause of action did not accrue until they became federally licensed firearms dealers in 2008 failed. The court rejected plaintiffs' alternative argument and affirmed the judgment. View "Hire Order Ltd v. Marianos" on Justia Law

Approximately three months before respondent was to be released from federal prison, the government sought to commit him as a "sexually dangerous person," 18 U.S.C.A. 4248(a), under the civil-commitment provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court held that the government failed to prove that respondent suffered from pedophilia and failed to prove he would have serious difficulty refraining from re-offending. Thus, the district court dismissed the petition and ordered respondent released. The government subsequently appealed. The court held that the district court erred in its conclusion that the application of the Act to respondent violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The court also held, among other things, that the record did not support the district court's determination that respondent did not suffer from various mental illnesses, abnormalities, or disorders because he no longer suffered from pedophilia. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Wooden" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possessing a firearm while a convicted felon and the district court's imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment. The court affirmed the conviction but concluded, however, that the district court erred in applying the murder cross-reference provision in U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(c)(1) and in treating as relevant conduct a murder that occurred during the course of an unrelated and uncharged offense, which error substantially increased defendant's advisory Guidelines range. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Horton" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence for his role in a bank robbery and mid-escape home intrusion, which ended in the death of an elderly woman who died of a heart attack. The court found that only one of defendant's contentions had merit - that the district court erred in instructing the jury on an offense not charged in the indictment. Therefore, the court vacated the conviction and sentence on the uncharged death results offense and remanded for entry of a judgment of conviction on Count Four regarding the forced accompaniment offense and for appropriate resentencing proceedings. The court affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "United States v. Whitfield" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from plaintiff's claim for survivor benefits after her husband was awarded total disability benefits in 1993 under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 932, until his death in 2000. The liable employer subsequently filed a modification request seeking reconsideration of the award of benefits. In 2004, the ALJ agreed to modify the 1993 award, retroactively denying plaintiff's living miner's claim and also rejecting her survivor's claim. On plaintiff's petition for review of the ALJ's decision, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the ALJ had failed to exercise the discretion accorded to him with respect to the modification request. On remand, the ALJ again denied plaintiff's claims but the Benefits Review Board (BRB) reversed. The employer petitioned for review and the court denied the petition, affirming the BRB's decision denying modification. View "Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Sharpe" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of drug charges in 2004 and almost six years later, he filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 seeking to vacate his sentence in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder. Because the Supreme Court's decision in Carachuri at most altered the procedural requirements that must be followed in applying recidivist enhancements and did not alter the range of conduct or the class of persons subject to criminal punishment, the court held that Carachuri was a procedural rule. Therefore, Carachuri was not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Thus, defendant's section 2255 motion must be dismissed as untimely pursuant to section 2255(f)(3). View "United States v. Powell" on Justia Law