Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, dog breeders and dealers in Missouri, challenged the Department's decision to release information in their annual reports relating to their gross revenue and business volume. Plaintiffs contended that the information requested by the Human Society under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, was covered by Exemptions 4 and 6. The court concluded that the Department's Exemption 4 conclusion was not arbitrary or capricious where the Department determined that Exemption 4 did not apply because the information at issue was unlikely to cause substantial competitive harm to plaintiffs. Further, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the Department's conclusion that Exemption 6 did not apply to the information at issue was arbitrary and capricious. The Department concluded that the public's interest in the activities of the Department outweighed the negligible privacy interest in the number of animals bought and sold and the minimal privacy interest in the gross dollars earned from regulated activities and the dollars upon which the fee was based. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the Department and the Humane Society. View "Jurewicz, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture & Humane Society" on Justia Law

In 2008, Defendants Wyche and Smith moved for sentence reductions after amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines lowered the sentencing ranges for cocaine base crimes. The district court granted Smith's motion but did not then rule on Wyche's motion. In 2011, Wyche and Smith filed resentencing motions after the Sentencing Commission again lowered the sentencing ranges for cocaine base offenses. The district court denied Smith's most recent resentencing motion and both of Wyche's motions. Because Wyche's pre-2011 amendment total offense level was 41, his total offense level and guideline range under the 2011 amendment would in fact increase, thereby precluding relief under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Because the record reflected that the 2012 district court's calculation of 8.4 kilograms was not clearly erroneous, a quantity finding greater than 840 grams of cocaine base was not clearly erroneous either. And because Smith was not eligible for a second sentence reduction, the 2012 district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgments. View "United States v. Wyche" on Justia Law

Lilliputian, manufacturer of micro fuel cells powered by butane, challenged the prohibition in a final rule against airline passengers and crew carrying butane fuel cell cartridges in their checked baggage. Lilliputian argued that the final rule was arbitrary and capricious in light of the dissimilar treatment of other products that were not subject to the rigorous safety specifications imposed on fuel cell cartridges. The court concluded that the Safety Administration failed to provide the required "reasoned explanation and substantial evidence" for the disparate treatment. Accordingly, the court remanded for the Safety Administration to provide further explanation for the prohibition, including its response to Lilliputian's comments. View "Lilliputian Sys., Inc. v. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Admin." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the FDIC's repudiation of a residential construction loan agreement relieved them of any obligation to continue making loan payments. The FDIC then assigned its interest in the loan to Multibank and plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Multibank as a defendant. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claim against Multibank for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claim was subject to the administrative exhaustion requirements pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183. View "Westberg, et al. v. FDIC, et al." on Justia Law

BNSF petitioned for review of the Board's decision to adhere to a revenue-allocation methodology, known as Modified ATC, in determining that the rates BNSF charged WFA were unreasonably high. In 2010, the court remanded the case to the Board so that it could address one of BNSF's objections to Modified ATC in the first instance. On remand, the Board concluded that portions of BNSF's arbitrary challenge fell outside the scope of the case given the specificity of the court's 2010 remand. The court concluded that the Board erred in its failure to address BNSF's proportionality challenge on remand. Because the court never actually resolved BNSF's arbitrary and capricious challenge to Modified ATC, the court granted the petition, vacated the Board's decision, and again remanded the case to the Board. View "BNSF Railway Co. v. STB, et al." on Justia Law