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

Defendant pled guilty to a drug offense and subsequently appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Although a district court could not impose a revocation sentence based predominately on the seriousness of the releasee's violation or the need for the sentence to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment, the court concluded that mere reference to such considerations did not render a revocation sentence procedurally unreasonable when those factors were relevant to, and considered in conjunction with, the enumerated 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; because the district court appropriately focused its discussion on the Chapter Seven policy statements in the federal Guidelines manual and based defendant's revocation sentence on factors listed in section 3583(e), the court discerned no error, much less plain error, in the district court's consideration of related factors; and, assuming arguendo, defendant was able to demonstrate that the district court committed plain error, defendant was unable to show that the error affected his substantial rights by influencing the outcome of the revocation hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Webb, Jr." on Justia Law

Relators filed suit in district court asserting claims arising from a Direct Procurement Method (DPM) scheme. The DOD instituted the International Through Government Bill of Lading program to govern transoceanic moves, while relying on the DPM to contract for transport strictly on the European continent. These appeals and cross-appeals were taken from final judgments, entered in accordance with Rule 54(b), in two qui tam actions consolidated for litigation in district court. The court concluded that relator possessed standing to sue for civil penalties while bypassing the prospect of a damages award and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in his favor; the court reversed and remanded to the extent that the district court denied relator discovery of any penalties; and the court vacated the district court's ruling in favor of the United States so that it could conduct further proceedings on what remained of the government's FCA claim and reentered judgment as appropriate. View "United States ex rel. Kurt Bunk v. Gosselin World Wide Moving" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit in state court alleging that Quicken Loans originated unlawful loans in West Virginia and that Defendant Appraisers, which included both the named appraisers and the unnamed class of appraisers, were complicit in the scheme. Quicken Loans removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). The district court then granted plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court under the local controversy exception. Quicken Loans appealed. The court vacated and remanded for a determination by the district court as to whether the named defendant appraisers satisfied the "at least 1 defendant" requirement of the local controversy exception. View "Quicken Loans Inc. v. Alig" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation by an aggravated felon. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's imposition of a sixteen level enhancement based on defendant's prior North Carolina conviction for taking indecent liberties with a minor. The court held that a conviction for taking indecent liberties with a minor qualified categorically as sexual abuse of a minor under United States v. Diaz-Ibarra and was therefore a crime of violence within the meaning of the reentry Guidelines and its Commentary, U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 cmt. n. 1(B)(iii). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Perez-Perez" on Justia Law

This case concerned a dispute over the Baltimore Ravens "Flying B" logo. After the Ravens had played their first season in 1997, plaintiff filed his first lawsuit against them and the NFL, alleging that the logo infringed the copyright in three of his drawings. In this appeal, plaintiff challenged the NFL's use of the logo in three videos featured on its television network and various websites, as well as the Baltimore Ravens' display of images that included the logo as part of exhibits in its stadium "Club Level" seating area. The court affirmed the district court's finding that defendants' limited use of the logo qualified as fair use. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. View "Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, sought review of the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal based on his claim that government officials would sterilize him for violating China's one-child policy if he returns to China. The court concluded that the adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence where the IJ and BIA identified specific and cogent reasons support this finding. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. To the extent that petitioner sought review of the BIA's denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture, the court concluded that the agency's decision was also supported by substantial evidence. View "Pan v. Holder" on Justia Law

PTJV filed suit against ACE claiming coverage under primary and excess insurance policies with regard to a large-scale construction project in Maryland. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ACE, holding that under Maryland and Tennessee law, PTJV violated the terms of both the primary and excess policies by not obtaining ACE's consent before settlement, and as such, could not now claim reimbursement under those policies. View "Perini/Tompkins Joint Venture v. ACE American Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After individuals associated with Occupy Columbia were removed by law enforcement from a 24-hour per day protest on the grounds of the South Carolina State House, Occupy Columbia filed suit against defendants, including the Governor, seeking injunctive relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the South Carolina Constitution, and South Carolina's common law. The court granted in part and denied in part. On appeal, defendants sought review of the district court's denial of qualified immunity to defendants. The court affirmed, concluding that Occupy Columbia has alleged a violation of a clearly established First Amendment right - the right to protest on State House grounds after 6:00 p.m. in the absence of a valid time, place, and manner restriction. View "Occupy Columbia v. Haley" on Justia Law

John and Jane Doe appealed the district court's order holding them in civil contempt for refusing to comply with grand jury subpoenas. The Does are the targets of a grand jury investigation in the district court seeking to determine whether they used secret Swiss bank accounts to conceal assets and income from the IRS and the Treasury Department. Because the court found that the records at issue met all the requirements of the required records doctrine, the Fifth Amendment privilege was inapplicable and the Does could not invoke it to shield themselves from the subpoenas' commands. Because the Does' Fifth Amendment privilege was not implicated, the court need not address their request for immunity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Under Seal" on Justia Law

Relators filed suit under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-33, against Purdue. The district court dismissed the action on res judicata grounds because it gave preclusive effect to the court's decision in United States ex rel. Radcliffe v. Purdue Pharma L.P. Although the court rejected relators' assertion that Radcliffe was a jurisdictional dismissal, the court nonetheless agreed that the district court erred by giving Radcliffe preclusive effect. Because the Release executed by Mark Radcliffe did not bar non-signatories from proceeding against Purdue, the judgment enforcing the Release could not bar such claims. Accordingly, the court erred by dismissing this action as barred by principles of res judicata. The court also concluded that the pre-2010 version of the Act's public disclosure bar, 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4), applied in this case. Because the district court has not made the factual findings necessary to determine whether the public-disclosure bar precluded this action, the court must remand to the district court for discovery and further proceedings. View "US ex rel. Steven May v. Purdue Pharma L.P." on Justia Law