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

Defendant challenged the denial of a collateral attack pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 on a conviction by a jury of crimes relating to a series of armed bank robberies. The DC Circuit held that defendant's contention that his trial and appellate counsel failed to object to the closure of voir dire, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was foreclosed in light of Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017), because he has not shown prejudicial error from the voir dire closure. The court held that defendant's second contention regarding the plea offer required remand because the motion and the files and records of the case did not conclusively show that he was entitled to no relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Aguiar" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. The court held that the presumption against extraterritoriality applied in this case and the evidence showed that the relevant conduct occurred in the United States; the court rejected defendant's "manufactured venue" claim and the district court did not err in determining that venue was not a question for the jury to decide; and the court rejected defendant's contention that venue was not proper in D.C. The court held that defendant was not denied due process of law and he failed to establish a violation under Brady v. Maryland. Finally, the court rejected defendant's claim that the government knowingly presented false evidence at trial in violation of Napue v. Illinois. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims. View "United States v. Sitzmann" on Justia Law

At issue was whether plaintiff's employment discrimination claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., were subject to ordinary principles of res judicata, even though at the time she filed her earlier suit she had not yet received a notice of her right to sue for those claims. The DC Circuit joined its sister circuits and held that res judicata applies to such Title VII claims, at least in the absence of a particularized showing that prosecuting or otherwise preserving the claims in the initial litigation was infeasible. In this case, including plaintiff's Title VII claims in her initial litigation was entirely feasible. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "Ashbourne v. Hansberry" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's refusal to set aside a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on one of her due process claims. Plaintiff filed suit against the District after she was terminated based on accusations that she had improperly influenced the bidding process for the District's healthcare contracts. Plaintiff alleged that the District violated her Fifth Amendment due-process rights by leaking these accusations to the press and denying her an opportunity to refute them. The court held that the District failed to preserve its speech argument and such failure precluded appellate review where the District failed to identify any exceptional circumstances. The court also held that precedent did not mandate a rigid minimum-duration rule governing how long a former government employee must be unemployed before she can claim that the government's actions had the broad effect of largely precluding her from pursuing her chosen career. Therefore, the court rejected the District's argument that two years of unemployment is never sufficient to establish that plaintiff has been deprived of her liberty interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the District's motion for judgment as a matter of law. View "Campbell v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit held that 42 C.F.R. 405.1885 does not apply to appeals from a fiscal intermediary to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board. Therefore, the court had no occasion to address whether the 2013 amendments to the reopening regulation were arbitrary and capricious or whether applying the amendments to proceedings pending on their effective date would be impermissibly retroactive. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Saint Francis Medical Center v. Azar" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the DOJ for violating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, in an action seeking records from the FBI relating to a deceased Internet activist. The court held that the FBI met its burden to demonstrate that its withholdings and redactions were justified under the FOIA exemptions and therefore affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the DOJ as to that issue. However, as to the adequacy of the FBI's search, the court remanded for any further proceedings with respect to the records from FBI case identification number 315T-HQ-C1475879-IP, serial 91. In this case, the FBI released a redacted version of Serial 91 to plaintiff following oral arguments. View "Shapiro v. DOJ" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to police officers in an action alleging that they violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights by arresting him without probable cause and using excessive force to subdue him. The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim of an unlawful arrest because the officers could have reasonably believed plaintiff was intoxicated and posed a danger to himself or others. Therefore, the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff. The court also held that plaintiff's contention that one of the officers intended to slam plaintiff's head into the bar window when executing a takedown was not supported by the record and the takedown maneuver used by the officer did not violate clearly established law. Therefore, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. View "Hedgpeth v. Rahim" on Justia Law

Proctor, a cocaine user and informant, told the Metropolitan Police Department that a"Boo" was selling crack cocaine in Lincoln Heights. The cell-phone number Proctor provided belonged to Haight. Shown a photograph Proctor said, “That’s Boo.” After Proctor made three controlled purchases of cocaine, officers executed a warrant at the apartment where Boo sold the cocaine. Officer Clifford, outside the building, saw two men jump from a window and run; he later testified that he was “90 percent” sure that one was Haight. Ferguson, who lived in the apartment, eventually testified that Haight used his apartment to process and sell crack cocaine. Officers searched Ferguson’s apartment and found drugs, a loaded handgun, cash, and a cell phone with a picture of Haight on its home screen. A bedroom window screen had been pushed out. Weeks later, the police arrested Haight. While staking out Haight’s apartment building, officers searched a backpack carried by Haight’s girlfriend as she left the building. It contained several pounds of marijuana, Haight’s employment documents, and writings that expressed Haight’s desire to deal drugs. After securing a warrant, the police searched Haight’s apartment and found another gun. Convicted on six counts,Haight was sentenced to 150 months in prison. The D.C. Circuit affirmed Haight’s conviction, upholding the district court’s refusal to postpone his trial and evidentiary rulings, but remanded an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Vacating his sentence, the court found that Haight was subject to a 15-year mandatory-minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act because of three prior convictions for violent felonies and serious drug offenses. View "United States v. Haight" on Justia Law

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order 1000 encourages the development of “interregional” electricity transmission projects, calling for regional providers to jointly evaluate interregional projects. Poviders must adopt cost-allocation methodologies for dividing up the costs of a joint project to assure that the relative costs borne by a particular transmission provider be commensurate with the relative benefits gained by the provider. MISO, which operates transmission facilities on behalf of providers across 15 midwestern states, proposed to conduct cost allocation for interregional projects using a “cost-avoidance” method. The share of costs allocated to MISO under that method corresponds to the benefits to MISO of its regional projects that would be displaced by the interregional project. In identifying which regional projects should be regarded as displaced, MISO proposed to exclude any project that had already been approved by the MISO board. The Commission rejected MISO’s cost-allocation approach, reasoning that excluding approved regional projects would fail to account for the full potential benefits of an interregional project. The D.C. Circuit denied a petition for review. Although MISO had standing and its claims were ripe, one claim was not properly presented to the agency in a request for rehearing. On the merits of the other claims, the court held that the Commission adequately responded to concerns about the possible effects of including approved regional projects in the cost-allocation calculation. View "Ameren Services Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that certain documents subpoenaed by the FTC were covered by the attorney-client privilege. The court held that obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes of the communications at issue. In this case, the relevant communications consisted primarily of the transmission of factual information from Boehringer's employees to the general counsel, at the general counsel's request, for the purpose of assisting the general counsel in formulating her legal advice regarding a possible settlement. Other communications were between the general counsel and the corporation's executives regarding the settlement. Therefore, all of the communications were protected by the attorney-client privilege. View "FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc." on Justia Law