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

Defendant appealed his drug trafficking and firearm convictions. Defendant contended that the district court erroneously admitted into evidence a jacket recovered from the vicinity of the arrest. Defendant also contended the district court compounded its error by declining to exclude expert evidence concerning DNA testing performed on the jacket, together with evidence documenting the jacket's handling and custody during the testing process. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that admission of the jacket into evidence satisfied the Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) threshold. The court also held that if the district court's admission of an expert's report constituted error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Summers" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty under a conditional plea agreement to knowing possession of a firearm not registered to him. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of his home; in denying defendant's request for a hearing challenging the veracity of the search warrant; and in sentencing defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. McKenzie-Gude" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a case involving an allision, collision between a moving vessel and a stationary object, between a USACE vessel and a private yacht, the Marquessa, owned and operated by appellants. Appellants appealed from the district court's award of damages in their favor, arguing that it was infirm in various respects. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the doctrine of constructive total loss; the district court reasonably credited testimony establishing a market value for the Marquessa; there was an insufficient basis in the record for determining the fact or extent of the alleged damage to the antennas and computers; and the district court did not err in amending its initial judgment to account for appellants' stipulation. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "F.C. Wheat Maritime Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff commenced an action under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., seeking a declaratory judgment that he was entitled to rescind a financing transaction and an award of statutory damages. At issue was whether a lender violated TILA in providing a notice to a borrower who was refinancing his mortgage of the right to rescind the transaction, using a form of notice substantially similar to Model Form H-8 in the Appendix to Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. pt. 226, rather than using Model Form H-9, which was designed for refinancing transactions. The court agreed with the district court and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim where Model Form H-8 included all of the information required by TILA and Regulation Z to advise borrowers of the right to rescind a consumer credit transaction, including a financing transaction. View "Watkins v. Sun Trust Mortgage Inc." on Justia Law

Following a state court judgment of over six million dollars entered against NHF in Texas, NHF filed a voluntary petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, seeking to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. At issue was were the circumstances under which a bankruptcy court could approve nondebtor release, injunction, and exculpation provisions as part of a final plan of reorganization under Chapter 11. The court held that equitable relief provisions of the type approved in this case were permissible in certain circumstances. A bankruptcy court must, however, find facts sufficient to support its legal conclusion that a particular debtor's circumstances entitled it to such relief. Because the bankruptcy court in this case failed to make such findings, the district court erred in affirming the bankruptcy court's confirmation order. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Behrmann, et al. v. Nat'l Heritage Foundation, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant subsequently appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a stop-and-frisk in a deserted gas station parking lot in the wee hours of the morning. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion and held that the officers had a reasonable suspicion to justify the stop-and-frisk. View "United States v. Glover" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendant alleging that its negligent care following the Caesarean section delivery of her baby injured her. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion by allowing an obstetrician-gynecologist (OB/GYN) to testify as an expert regarding the standard of care for a nurse's postpartum monitoring of a high-risk patient with preeclampsia. Because neither the statute nor Virginia case law precluded the expert testimony at issue, the court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment. View "Creekmore v. Maryview Hospital" on Justia Law

CGM, a billing agent for competitive local exchange carriers (competitive LECs), brought a declaratory judgment action against BellSouth, an incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC). CGM claimed that BellSouth offered long-term promotional discounts to its own customers but failed, in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 251(c)(2), 251(c)(4), and rules implementing it, to pass the full value of those discounts on to CGM's client competitive LECs, none of which was a party to the suit. Because CGM had no statutory standing under either the 1996 Act or a seemingly broadly worded but nonetheless inapplicable statute from the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 401(b), the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of CGM's complaint. View "CGM, LLC v. BellSouth Telecommunication, et al." on Justia Law

This case involved a widow's claim for survivors' benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), 30 U.S.C. 901-944, as amended by the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Pub. L. No. 111-148, Section 1556, 124 Stat. 119, 260. The PPACA amendments revived Section 422(l) of the BLBA, 30 U.S.C. 932(l), which provided that an eligible survivor of a miner who was receiving benefits at the time of his death was automatically entitled to survivors' benefits without having to establish that the miner's death was due to pneumoconiosis. Relying on an amended section 932(l), the Benefits Review Board, ruled that the miner's widow was entitled to survivors' benefits. On appeal, petitioner raised a variety of constitutional and statutory challenges to the PPACA's restoration provision. The court held that because retroactive application of amended Section 932(l) was hardly arbitrary or irrational, petitioner's substantive due process argument was unavailing. Because amended Section 932(l) merely required petitioner to pay money - and thus did not infringe a specific, identifiable property interest - the Takings Clause was not applicable. The court also held that the miner's widow was derivatively entitled to survivors' benefits pursuant to Section 932(l). Finally, because petitioner made its contention, that 30 U.S.C. 901, 921(a), and 922(a)(2) prevented the miner's widow from receiving automatic survivors' benefits, for the first time at oral argument, the court held that it was waived. Accordingly, the judgment of the Board was affirmed. View "West Virginia CWP Fund v. Stacy" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted in a jury trial of three offenses related to his possession of child pornography. On appeal, defendant argued that the search warrant that led to his arrest was invalid; that a jury instruction involving the term "obscene" was erroneous because it lacked a knowledge requirement; and that his sentence was imposed in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The court held, pursuant to United States v. Leon, that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress. The court also held that the district court did not give the jury an erroneous instruction because the jury was not required to find that defendant knew that the images at issue were obscene. The court further held that defendant's sentence was not unconstitutional where the harshness of defendant's penalty reflected the gravity of his crimes and, as the district court correctly noted, the severity of defendant's sentence was based on his recidivism. The ten-year sentence for Count Two was also proportional to other sentences because this sentence was mandated by statute. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Wellman" on Justia Law