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

Appellant, an African American man employed by the IRS, alleged that the IRS discriminated against him on the basis of race and gender when it awarded a temporary detail and then a permanent promotion to a white female employee. Appellant also claimed that the IRS retaliated against him when he pursued the matter with the Equal Employment Opportunity office. The district court granted summary judgment to the government on all claims. The court agreed that appellant failed to exhaust his claim regarding the temporary detail and so affirmed that portion of the district court's judgment. But because the court concluded a reasonable jury could find that the government's proffered nondiscriminatory reason for denying appellant the permanent promotion was pretextual and that discrimination was the real reason, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the discriminatory promotion claim and remanded to allow that claim to proceed to trial. And because the court concluded that appellant established a prima facie case of retaliation, the court remanded that claim for further proceedings. View "Hamilton v. Geithner" on Justia Law

Roger Rudder, two other adults, and two juveniles sued the District of Columbia and two Metropolitan Police officers for using excessive force against them at the 2008 Caribbean Carnival Parade in violation of their civil rights. The district court dismissed their suit with prejudice. The court concluded that, although plaintiffs unambiguously conceded all their common law claims, the juvenile plaintiffs' common law claims should have been dismissed without prejudice because those claims were not time-barred. The complaint also alleged facts stating facially plausible claims against two officers for violations of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the judgment of the district court was reversed. View "Rudder, et al. v. Williams, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. Defendant subsequently appealed the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition seeking relief for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that counsel told defendant of the plea offer and therefore that counsel made no error on which to base a Strickland claim. View "United States v. Lathern" on Justia Law

Defendant was tried for various crimes arising from his involvement with the M Street Crew, a gang in Washington D.C., and was found guilty of narcotics conspiracy, participation in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, drug dealing, four felony murders, assault with intent to kill while armed, assault on a police officer, three violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity (VICAR), 18 U.S.C. 1959, and various gun charges. Defendant raised several issues on appeal, claiming error in the government's use of peremptory challenges, in rejecting his challenge to the joinder of local and federal charges, in denying his motion for severance, and in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. The court held that there was no reversible error and rejected defendant's claims, affirming the judgment of the court. View "United States v. Gooch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence of 60 months' imprisonment resulting from her convictions of possession of stolen mail and aggravated identity theft. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court failed to consider two mitigating arguments she advanced. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court because the record reflected that the district court in fact considered both arguments and provided a reasoned basis for defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Locke" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing heroin. At issue was whether defendant could qualify under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(5) without disclosing the fate of the sample provided by the seller but not delivered in the transaction, or the origin of the sample that he did deliver to the buyer. The court agreed with the district court that defendant did not qualify for safety-valve relief where defendant's omission of the information at issue concerned his offense of conviction and was essential to safety-valve relief. View "United States v. Danso" on Justia Law

Appellants were arrested for speeding in excess of 30 mph above the posted speed limit and subsequently filed a class action on behalf of all individuals who have been arrested and subjected to criminal penalties for such speeding in the last three years. Appellants alleged that the district's traffic enforcement policies denied them the equal protection of law and thus violated the Fifth Amendment. Specifically appellants objected to the district's policy of subjecting motorists who speed in excess of 30 mph over the speed limit to different penalties, depending on how they were caught. The district court granted the district's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court affirmed the district court's judgment, but on different grounds. The court held that appellants' claim lacked merit because their challenge could not survive rational basis review where the district's traffic policy neither burdened a fundamental right nor targeted a suspect class. View "Dixon, et al. v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

This case arose under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, where appellant challenged the CIA's Glomar response to his request for "all information or records relevant to... Sveinn B. Valfells." The court held that appellant failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that the CIA had officially acknowledged any record responsive to his FOIA request. Although the CIA confirmed that some unspecified "CIA-originated information" was redacted from an FBI report, appellant could not isolate any specific CIA record that had been officially acknowledged by the CIA. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the CIA was affirmed. View "Moore, III v. CIA" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of serious drug offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contended that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when he declined the prosecution's plea deal proposal and instead went to trial. The court concluded that defendant could not show a reasonable probability that he would have pled guilty if he had been fully informed of the sentencing permutations and therefore could not show the required reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Accordingly, the court found no basis in the record to disturb the district court's credibility finding and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Franklin" on Justia Law

Appellant, an African-American female attorney in the Office of the Chief Counsel of the PBGC, filed suit in district court against the PBGC, claiming employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. Appellant appealed two issues: first, claims of race and gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation, arising out of four discrete episodes; second, a claim of retaliatory hostile work environment arising not only out of the four discrete episodes but also out of various other events as to which she raised claims that were time-barred. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of appellant's claims of race and gender discrimination and of unlawful retaliation where the court did not believe that the PBGC's failure to remedy the various critiques and epithets to which appellant's fellow employees subjected her would have persuaded a reasonable employee to refrain from making or supporting charges of discrimination. The court held, however, that the district court erred to the extent that it categorically excluded her time-barred complaints in considering the hostile work environment claim, thus failing to employ the Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan analysis, including a determination of which acts exhibit the relationship necessary to be considered part of the same actionable hostile work environment claim. Accordingly, the court remanded for a determination of which, if any acts, should have been included under Morgan. View "Baird v. Gotbaum" on Justia Law