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

Judicial Watch filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), asking the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to disclose records of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that showed how much money they gave to political campaigns. At issue was whether the requested documents were "agency records" for purposes of FOIA. The court held that the FHFA's unexercised right to use and dispose of the records requested in this case was not enough to subject those records to FOIA where the FHFA had not read or relied on the records in any way. The court held that because it held that FHFA did not control the records, it need not reach FHFA's alternative argument.

Appellant challenged a judgment of the district court affirming the Social Security Administration's (SSA) denial of his application for disability benefits. Appellant contended that the ALJ did not properly apply the "treating physician rule" in evaluating his application and further argued that new evidence had come to light that warranted a remand to the agency. The court held that the ALJ did not, as required by the treating physician rule, explain his reasons for rejecting the opinion of appellant's treating physician. The court also held that a letter from the Board of Medicine validating appellant's complaint, as well as a judicial determination that a physician's report contained a false representation, qualified as new evidence within the meaning of 42. U.S.C. 405(g). Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.

Appellant appealed the decision of the district court to detain him prior to trial where appellant was considered a flight risk. At issue was whether the recorded findings, even if not in the form required by the Bail Reform Act (Act), 18 U.S.C. 3142, were sufficient to support the conclusion that appellant's pretrial detention was necessary in order to assure his presence at trial. The court held that because the district court failed to conform to the requirements of section 3142(g), i(l), the court must remand the case for the district court to consider all the relevant facts and to prepare findings of fact and a statement of reasons in support of appellant's pretrial detention pursuant to the Act, or otherwise to order appellant's pretrial release subject to appropriate conditions.

Six defendants appealed from judgments of conviction on multiple charges related to a drug distribution business, including drug conspiracy, RICO conspiracy, continuing criminal enterprise, murder, and other related charges in violation of federal and District of Columbia laws. On appeal, defendants asserted numerous issues of error covering, among other things, evidentiary issues, conduct of the trial, prosecutorial misconduct, and jury instructions. Upon review, the court held that most of the asserted errors either were not erroneous or were harmless. As to one category of issue involving alleged violations of the Confrontation Clause, a Supreme Court decision intervening between the trial and the court's consideration of the case compelled the court to remand convictions for some drug charges (Counts 126-138) for further consideration in light of Bullcoming v. New Mexico. The court also remanded for further proceedings for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised by Calvin Smith (Counts 4 and 5) and vacated one murder conviction as to Rodney Moore that, as the parties agree, merged with another conviction (Count 32). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

This was an appeal from the denial of the petition of a detainee at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay for a writ of habeas corpus. At issue was whether the district court erred in determining that the detainee was being lawfully detained on the record as it stood before that court and whether the district court's procedural errors deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to develop a record upon which he could challenge his detention. The court rejected the detainee's contention that the district court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous and because those findings were enough to establish that the detainee was "part of the Taliban or al Qaeda," the court rejected his contention that the record before the court was insufficient to establish the lawfulness of his detention. Given the time the detainee's attorneys had after their receipt of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal record, the district court's grant of leave to file an amended traverse, and the absence of any subsequent request for additional time or discovery, the court held that the detainee had failed to show that he was prejudiced by the denial of the thirty-day continuance. The court also held that, in light of the circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to issue further discovery orders without a showing that there was a basis for believing that the requests satisfied the Case Management Order's predicate conditions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the petition.

Defendant pled guilty to one count of identity theft as part of a plea agreement where defendant had treated hundreds of patients while falsely representing that he was a licensed physician. In determining defendant's sentence, the district court increased his sentence under U.S.S.G. 3A1.1(b)(1) because some of his patients were children with serious mental health conditions. On appeal, defendant disputed the increase in his offense level, contending that section 3A1.1(b)(1)'s 2-level adjustment for vulnerable victims applied only to victims of defendant's offense of conviction, who in this case would include only those victims who suffered financial loss. The court disagreed and held that the adjustment applied not only to victims of the offense of conviction, but also to victims of defendant's relevant conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

The United States detained Nazul Gul and Adel Hamad for several years at the Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay and during that time, each filed with the district court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Prior to any hearing on the merits of their petitions, the United States transferred the detainees to the custody of foreign sovereigns and did not then rescind their designation as "enemy combatants." Gul and Hamad wanted to continue litigating their habeas petitions but the district court dismissed their petitions as moot because they were no longer held by the United States. Gul and Hamad subsequently appealed, arguing among other things, that their petitions were not moot because they continued to be burdened by the collateral consequences of their prior detention and continuing designation. The court held that, having determined that Gul and Hamad identified no injury sufficient to bring their cases within the court's jurisdiction under Article III, the court affirmed the order of the district court.

Appellee alleged that six U.S. Postal Inspectors wrongly caused him to be criminally prosecuted in retaliation for his public criticism of the United States Postal Service (USPS) and its personnel. The Postal Inspectors appealed the district court's qualified immunity, on appellee's claim of retaliatory inducement to prosecution in violation of his right to free speech under the First Amendment. Insofar as the appeal challenged the district court's determination that there were genuine issues of material fact, the court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Insofar as the district court declined to find the Postal Inspectors protected by qualified immunity based on "arguable probable cause," the court affirmed. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court for trial on the merits.

Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and possession of a firearm during a trafficking offense. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's finding that he consented to the search of his car, and the district court's refusal at sentencing to consider all of the proffered facts concerning his relevant history and characteristics. The court held that defendant failed to show that the district court's credibility finding with regard to the police officers' testimony that he gave consent was based on "exceedingly improbable testimony" and thus clearly erroneous. A review of the record indicated that the inconsistencies between the suppression testimony and one of the officers' prior statements were not so glaring as to render incredible the officers' testimony that defendant consented to the search of his car. Nor did apparent violations of departmental protocols unrelated to defendant's consent so undermined the officers' credibility that it was clear error for the district court to credit their testimony regarding defendant's consent. A remand for resentencing, however, was required because the district court must take into account all relevant facts related to a defendant's "history and characteristics," where the sentencing record reflected that the district court appeared to have "misunderstood its sentencing authority" to consider certain proffered facts, even though the government agreed defendant properly requested the court to do so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction with regard to defendant's challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress and vacate the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and two individuals petitioned for review of a decision by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to screen airline passengers by using advanced imaging technology (AIT) instead of magnetometers. EPIC argued that the use of AIT violated various federal statutes and the Fourth Amendment and, in any event, should have been the subject of notice-and-comment rulemaking before being adopted. The court granted the petition for review with respect to claims that the TSA had not justified its failure to initiate notice-and-comment rulemaking before announcing it would use AIT scanners for primary screening at airports. None of the exceptions urged by the TSA justified its failure to give notice of and receive comment upon such a rule, which was legislative and not merely interpretive, procedural, or a general statement of policy. The court denied the petition with respect to EPIC's statutory arguments and their claim under the Fourth Amendment, except their claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., which the court dismissed for lack of standing. Finally, due to the obvious need for the TSA to continue its airport security operations without interruption, the court remanded the rule to the TSA but did not vacate it.