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

Defendant was convicted of four counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiring to commit mail fraud. The court held that even if the district court erred in requiring defendant to adhere to the proffer agreement, admission of the proffered statements at issue was harmless; the district court did not err in denying defendant's Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal where the government presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that CitiCapital had a property interest in the lease-to-own payments at issue; the government submitted sufficient evidence to the jury that it could find that defendant obtained the payments "by means of material false or fraudulent pretenses[;]" and the government presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant caused the mails to be used to execute his fraudulent scheme. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gillion" on Justia Law

The Trustee filed this action against former directors and officers of Bancshares. The directors also all formerly served as the officers and directors of the Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bancshares. The court held that the Trustee could pursue her claims only as to the directors' alleged improper subordination of Bancshares' LLC interest. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded the district court's judgment as to that claim, but affirmed its judgment in all other respects. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in granting the directors' motion to dismiss except as to the claim for subordination of the LLC interest of Bancshares. View "Beach First National Bancshare v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this action, asserting claims for, inter alia, breach of contract and violation of the Maryland Credit Grantor Closed End Provisions (CLEC), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law 12-1001 et seq. The district court was persuaded that the National Bank Act (NBA), 12 U.S.C. 24, 484(A), and federal regulations preempted the CLEC, and that plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract. The court held that the district court erred in deeming plaintiff's CLEC claim against Capital One preempted by federal law and regulations where Capital One was subject to the terms of the CLEC in loans it acquired through assignment. The court also held that a breach of contract claim had been adequately pleaded and therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the claim. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Decohen v. Capital One N.A." on Justia Law

This appeal involved a regulatory action by the Department of Labor, which suspended various regulations for temporary agricultural workers and reinstated other prior regulations. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that the Department: (1) engaged in "rule making" when reinstating the prior regulations; and (2) failed to comply with the notice and comment procedures mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 501 et seq. The court also concluded that the Department did not invoke the "good cause exception" provided by the APA to excuse its failure to comply with these notice and comment requirements. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in invalidating the Department's action on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious. View "United Farm Workers v. North Carolina Growers' Assoc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his jury conviction of a Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), and using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Defendant also challenged his sentence. When defendant stole money from the dry cleaners' cash register, depleting an inherently economic enterprise of its assets, the Hobbs Act jurisdictional requirement was satisfied. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction; the district court did not plainly err when delivering the jury instructions; and defendant was properly sentenced as a career offender. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Tillery" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, individually and as executor of the estate of her husband, appealed the district court's dismissal of her action for wrongful death and loss of consortium under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346. The court concluded that, because adjudication of plaintiff's FTCA claim would not affect the validity of her VA benefits award, the district court did not err in holding that 38 U.S.C. 511 did not preclude the court from making independent findings of fact and conclusions of law in plaintiff's FTCA proceeding. Nor did the district court err in holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact since plaintiff conceded that she would not call any expert witnesses to prove her medical malpractice case, as required by North Carolina law. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Government. View "Butler v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from two counts of theft of public money and one count of committing acts affecting a personal financial interest. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss where it properly exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over him. The court also held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his post-arrest statements to FBI and DOS agents. The court further held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions on the two counts of theft of public money. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ayesh" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter during the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony. The underlying unlawful act was an alleged violation of 36 C.F.R. 4.23(a)(2), which provided that "[o]perating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is prohibited while . . . [t]he alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood[.]" The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the toxicologist's generic testimony on alcohol metabolization. Nor was defendant entitled to judgment of acquittal because the government's evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's proposed jury instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

These appeals arose from allegations that the City of Durham and its officials mishandled false rape charges made against members of the 2005-2006 Duke University lacrosse team. The City and its officials asserted various immunities from suit and on that basis moved to dismiss, or for summary judgment, as to all claims alleged against them. The district court granted those motions in part and denied them in part. The City and its officials appealed. The court reversed the district court's denial of all defendants' motions to dismiss the federal claims alleged against them; reversed the denial of the City's motion for summary judgment as to the state common-law claims alleged against it; affirmed the denial of Officer Gottlieb and Himan's motions to dismiss the state common-law malicious prosecution claims alleged against them; reversed the denial of the officers' motions to dismiss all other state common-law claims; dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction the City's appeal of the state constitutional claims alleged against it; and remanded the cases for further proceedings. View "Evans v. Chalmers" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Mexico, was indicted for possessing firearms while being illegally or unlawfully in the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge, contending that section 922(g)(5) violated his rights under the Second and Fifth Amendments. The district court denied the motion, holding that section 922(g)(5) was constitutional. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the scope of the Second Amendment did not extend to provide protection to illegal aliens, because illegal aliens were not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance. On defendant's Fifth Amendment challenge, the court concluded that prohibiting aliens, as a class, from possessing firearms was rationally related to Congress' legitimate interest in public safety. View "United States v. Carpio-Leon" on Justia Law