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

This case arose from a dispute between CoreTel and Verizon regarding their respective responsibilities under an interconnection agreement (ICA), a private contract that implements duties imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. Each party contended that the other improperly billed it for various services. The district court granted summary judgment in Verizon's favor on each claim. The court concluded that CoreTel was entitled to summary judgment in its favor on both its and Verizon's claims for declaratory relief relating to Verizon's facilities charges where the ICA entitled CoreTel to order entrance facilities for interconnection at TELRIC. The court remanded for consideration of CoreTel's claim for injunctive relief. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on CoreTel's facilities claims where the facilities CoreTel provided were not entrance facilities under ICA 1.25 and CoreTel pointed to no provision of the ICA that authorized it to simply levy facilities charges for any piece of equipment that handled Verizon's traffic. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in Verizon's favor on CoreTel's reciprocal compensation claims. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in Verizon's favor on Verizon's switched-access claims.View "CoreTel Virginia, LLC v. Verizon Virginia, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that he was unlawfully fired in retaliation for engaging in activities protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), 18 U.S.C. 1514A. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. The court affirmed, concluding that plaintiff had not successfully established the contributing factor element of his prima facie case. In this instance, the standard would be toothless if the court held that a preponderance of the evidence showed that the long-past activities at issue affected plaintiff's termination given the lengthy history of antagonism and the intervening events which caused the Outside Directors to view plaintiff as an insubordinate. View "Feldman v. Law Enforcement Assoc. Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to three counts arising from his fraudulent activity in connection with a client's initial public offering. Defendant sought habeas relief, contending that, in light of the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, the conduct for which he was convicted is no longer criminal. The court found Janus inapplicable outside the context of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), implied private right of action. Therefore, Janus does not affect defendant's criminal convictions. Because defendant's convictions are proper under current law, the court concluded that his section 2241 petition necessarily failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of his petition.View "Prousalis, Jr. v. Moore" on Justia Law

Movant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances and sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without parole. He was 17 years old when the conspiracy began and the conspiracy continued until he had turned 18. After the Supreme Court issued its decision in Miller v. Alabama, movant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) seeking authorization to file a successive section 2255 motion. The court denied the motion, concluding that, even assuming that movant qualified as a juvenile offender, his proposed motion would necessarily rely on a right that became available to him in 2010 with the Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida, which held that sentencing a juvenile who did not commit a homicide to life imprisonment without parole violated the Eighth Amendment, and not on Miller, which extended the Graham rule to prohibit mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of committing homicide. Because Graham was decided more than one year before movant filed his section 2255(h) motion, the successive section 2255 motion he sought leave to file would be barred by the applicable one year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(3). View "In re: Tadd Vassell" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus against the State. Immediately after the jury returned its sentencing recommendation, petitioner alleged to the state trial judge that one of the jurors discussed the death penalty with her pastor the previous day. The court concluded that the state post-conviction court's failure to apply a presumption of prejudice and failure to investigate petitioner's juror misconduct claim, which was based on an external influence on the jury, was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the state court's failures had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury's verdict. View "Barnes v. Joyner" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, the Assistant Director for Clinical Administration at Central State Hospital, after her son was murdered by another patient at the hospital. The court affirmed the district court's decision to strike plaintiff's expert witness because he was disclosed in an untimely fashion; affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's second motion to amend her complaint to add two defendants because such amendment would be futile; and affirmed the district court's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims against defendant, who was an assistant director in charge of administrative matters at the time of the son's death.View "Wilkins v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

Respondent, civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person, challenged the denial of the motions to extend and reopen the discovery period, motions to withdraw as counsel, and motions to appoint a second expert. The court concluded that, in proceedings that could result in the lifelong incarceration of respondent who has already served his full sentence, respondent was forced to be represented by an attorney asserting multiple conflicts of interest with whom he had not prepared for trial because of their inability to communicate. The district court abused its discretion in requiring counsel to continue representing respondent and the error was not harmless. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment as to the motions to withdraw and remanded for the district court to consider these motions after engaging in the appropriate inquiry regarding the extent of counsel's conflicts.View "United States v. Blackledge" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against his former employer, Accenture, alleging claims for age discrimination. Accenture moved to compel arbitration. While the motion to compel arbitration was pending with the Superior Court, plaintiff received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC and filed an action in district court. Accenture moved to compel arbitration of these claims as well. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the district court erred in compelling arbitration. The court held that, where the plaintiff is not pursuing Dodd-Frank whistleblower claims, neither 7 U.S.C. 26(n)(2), nor 18 U.S.C. 1514A(e)(2) overrides the FAA's mandate that arbitration agreements are enforceable. Because plaintiff was not pursuing a "dispute under this section" Dodd-Frank did not bar arbitration of his federal claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Santoro v. Accenture Federal Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed suit for survivor's benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901-945. Petitioner sought review of an April 2012 decision of the BRB affirming the denial of benefits by an ALJ. The court held that petitioner satisfied the test for survivor's benefits: she is the surviving spouse of a miner whose death was hastened by pneumoconiosis due at least in part to coal mine employment. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with directions to award benefits without further administrative proceedings.View "Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of a prohibited object by a federal inmate. Defendant received a jury trial in which the jury made two specific factual findings but never returned a guilty verdict. The court vacated defendant's conviction and sentence and remanded, concluding that the district court violated defendant's right to have a jury determine his guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.View "United States v. Ramirez-Castillo" on Justia Law