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

Plaintiffs commenced this putative class action alleging that defendants participated in a global Internet conspiracy to sell illegal prescription drugs, in violation of the laws of the United States and Virginia. At issue on appeal was whether the district court erred in dismissing the complaint against four foreign banks for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that Rule 4(k)(2) did not justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the banks because exercising jurisdiction over them would not, in the circumstances here, be consistent with the United States Constitution and laws. Subjecting the banks to the coercive power of the court in the United States, in the absence of minimum contacts, would constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's orders dismissing the complaint against the banks. View "Unspam Technologies v. Chernuk" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, request with the DEA for documents concerning the federal government's regulation of the drug carisoprodol. After nearly two and a half years of pursuing his request through the administrative process to no avail, plaintiff filed this action against the DEA seeking production of the documents he originally requested. Because the DEA violated its statutory deadline for responding to plaintiff, the court held that he has exhausted his administrative remedies in this matter and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Coleman v. DEA" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of possession of a stolen firearm after he broke into a house and stole a firearm and other valuables. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's order of restitution to reimburse the homeowner for the value of the unrecovered firearm and damage caused by the break-in. The court concluded that the homeowner could not be considered a victim under the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663, and so was not entitled to restitution on that basis for the loss defendant caused him; defendant's written plea agreement provided no explicit agreement to pay restitution; and the district court's imposition of the restitution order constituted plain error. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court to the extent it ordered restitution. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Albert DiFederico, a former naval commander, was serving as a civilian contractor for the State Department in Pakistan when he was killed in a terrorist attack on the Marriott Islamabad Hotel. His widow and their three sons brought this wrongful death action and survivorship claim alleging that Marriott was liable for its failure to adequately secure its franchise hotel. The district court granted Marriott's motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, finding that Pakistan was an available, adequate, and far more convenient forum to hear the case. Plaintiffs brought their suit in the forum of Marriott's principal place of business, the District of Maryland. The court found that plaintiffs were entitled to heightened deference in their choice of forum. The court concluded that it would be a perversion of justice to force a widow and her children to place themselves in the same risk-laden situation that led to the death of a family member. Plaintiffs were inconvenienced by the fear, emotional trauma, and associated logistical complexity that would afflict them if this case were dismissed and decided in Pakistan. The court's review of several of the applicable public and private factors provided additional support for the court's conclusion that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "DiFederico v. Marriott Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved the government's efforts to civilly commit respondent under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587. Because the district court did not clearly err in concluding that respondent did not have a serious mental illness, the court affirmed the district court's finding that respondent was ineligible for civil commitment. Consequently, the court need not address the district court's findings with regard to whether respondent lacked volitional control. View "United States v. Springer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence for several crimes related to an investment scheme that resulted in nearly $100 million in losses for investors. The court reversed defendant's money laundering convictions because they were barred by the "merger problem" identified in United States v. Santos; affirmed the remainder of his convictions; and although the court found no error in defendant's sentence, in light of the court's reversal of the money laundering convictions, the court vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Abdulwahab" on Justia Law

Country Vintner sued Gallo, under North Carolina law over the wholesale distribution of an Argentinian wine. At issue on appeal was what expenses related to electronically stored information (ESI) were taxable under the federal taxation-of-costs statute, 28 U.S.C. 1920(4). The district court entered an order taxing only the costs of converting electronic files to non-editable formats, and transferring files onto CDs. The court agreed with the district court's finding that only the conversion of native files to TIFF and PDF formats, and the transfers of files onto CDs, constituted "making copies" under section 1920(f), and that none of Gallo's expenses constituted fees for exemplification. View "The Country Vintner v. E & J Gallo Winery" on Justia Law

Sprint entered into interconnection agreements with incumbent local exchange carriers (CenturyLink Plaintiffs) providing for the mutual exchange of telecommunications traffic pursuant to the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. When Sprint began to withhold payments under the agreement, CenturyLink brought a breach of contract claim in federal district court. The court held that the 1996 Act did not require a State commission to interpret and enforce an interconnection agreement (ICA) in the first instance; neither the text of the 1996 Act nor prudential considerations compelled federal deference to State commissions in the first instance; the district court judge's ownership of shares in plaintiff did not constitute a financial interest in plaintiff for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 455(b); the district court did not violate the recusal statute and therefore did not abuse his discretion in deciding that neither recusal nor vacatur was appropriate; when viewed in conjunction with the ambiguity in the ICA's coverage of voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP) traffic over Feature Group D (FGD) trunks, the parties' course of dealing reinforced the court's conclusion that the district court did not err in entering judgment for plaintiff on its breach of contract claim; and, in the face of ambiguity, the court construed the relevant provisions of the North Carolina ICA against Sprint and in favor of plaintiff. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Central Telephone Co. v. Sprint Communications Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to possess fifty grams or more of cocaine base with intent to distribute. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. The court found that defendant's conviction was well supported by substantial evidence; the district court committed no error in its pretrial evidentiary rulings; however, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing because defendant was ineligible for the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law

In this case, a federal jury found that the defendant properties were subject to civil forfeiture. The jury found that each property derived from the proceeds of a health care fraud and money laundering scheme committed by Dr. Mert Kivanc - the son of Turan and Duygu Kivanc (Claimants). The court concluded that the district court correctly denied Claimants' motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations; the district court did not err in denying Claimants' motions to permit Turan and Dr. Kivanc to testify remotely from Turkey; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Dr. Kivanc's statements and two documents at issue; the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give Claimants' proposed jury instructions; and Dr. Kivanc's statements and transfer of defendant properties to Claimants and money to Turan were sufficient evidence of his intent to conceal his unlawful activities to withstand Claimants' Rule 50 motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kivanc" on Justia Law