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

Defendant appealed his convictions for drug conspiracy charges, arguing that the 26-month delay between his arrest and the start of his trial violated the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161 et seq., and the Sixth Amendment. Because the district court's grant of the 270-day ends-of-justice continuance was both substantively and procedurally valid, the court concluded that the district court properly excluded the 104 days between January and July 2004 that defendant alleged should have been counted under the Act. The various days between late June 2005 and January 2006 at issue were also properly excluded. Because any error was not "clear or obvious" under the Barker v. Wingo analysis, the court was unpersuaded by defendant's Sixth Amendment challenges. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rice" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the settlement of a lawsuit alleging Libya's responsibility for the 1986 LaBelle discotheque bombing in Berlin. The victims' lawyers received nearly $36 million for their efforts. Plaintiff, a retired federal agent who allegedly provided investigative and other services to the lawyers in the litigation, filed suit against the lawyers, alleging a claim of unjust enrichment. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff's claim was untimely under the three-year statute of limitations because it accrued when plaintiff received a letter refusing his request for compensation. Although plaintiff's right to recover on his contractual claim - still pending in district court - may turn on the success of the lawsuit, his right of recovery on his unjust enrichment claim was based on the services he performed. View "Bregman v. Perles, et al." on Justia Law

CREW filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, request seeking various types of documents related to the FBI's investigation of Tom DeLay, the former Majority Leader. The FBI opened a wide-ranging public corruption investigation into the activities of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Two of those convicted from the investigation once served as senior aides to Tom DeLay. After the FBI declined to produce documents and CREW filed suit against the DOJ, the district court granted summary judgment to the DOJ. The court concluded that the DOJ has not met its burden to justify categorical withholding under Exemption 7(A) or 7(C). Nor has it provided sufficient detail at this stage for a court to determine whether a portion of the requested records may be withheld under Exemption 3, 7(D), or 7(E). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Citizens for Responsibility v. DOJ" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a group of hospitals that serve a significant number of elderly, very low-income patients, filed suit challenging the Secretary's issuance of a rule concerning the "disproportionate share percentage" calculation of supplemental payments for low-income Medicare patients. When the Secretary published reimbursement calculations for FY 2007, petitioners learned that their payments would decrease by tens of millions of dollars per year. The rule change had an enormous financial consequence on hospitals. The court held that the Secretary did not provide adequate notice and opportunity to comment before promulgating its 2004 rule, and so affirmed the portion of the district court's opinion vacating the rule. The court reversed only the portion of the district court's opinion directing the Secretary to recalculate the hospitals' reimbursements using the alternate methodology. View "Allina Health Services, et al. v. Sebelius" on Justia Law