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

Defendant pleaded guilty to willful failure to pay over federal employment taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7202 and received an above-Guidelines sentence of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. Defendant committed the crime in this case while he was pleading guilty and being sentenced for a nearly identical crime. The court noted that there are good reasons for concluding that the Statements of Reasons district judges submit to the Sentencing Commission are purely administrative, to assist the Commission's data-gathering function, not to confer on a sentenced defendant some after-the-fact procedural protection. The court joined every other circuit in holding that because the district court's oral explanation sufficed, any written deficiency did not affect defendant's substantial rights and therefore does not warrant vacating his sentence or remanding the case. Finally, the court concluded that the district court's remark regarding an adequate punishment did not render the sentence unlawful, and defendant's sentence was not too severe nor an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., requesters challenged the fees assessed against them by the DOJ for processing their requests for records. The district court awarded summary judgment to the DOJ. The court concluded that there remains a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the direct costs of producing a CD exceed $15. Therefore, the court vacated as to this claim. The court affirmed as to the district court's grant of summary judgment in regard to the request for a public-interest fee waiver. View "National Security Counselors v. DOJ" on Justia Law

Chenari, a third-year George Washington University medical student, took a test published by the National Board of Medical Examiners. Before the exam, the proctor read aloud the instructions from NBME’s official manual, including that students must complete the exam in two and a half hours and that “[n]o additional time [would] be allowed for transferring answers” to the answer sheet. Chenari also received a copy of “Exam Guidelines,” containing a similar warning. When the proctor called time, Chenari discovered that he had failed to transfer 20-30 answers to his answer sheet, “panicked,” and continued to transfer answers. The proctor requested that he stop; he continued. When the proctor tried to take the exam, Chenari put his hand over it and continued entering answers, taking an additional 90-120 seconds. The proctor and another student reported Chenari. Pursuant to University procedures, an Honor Code Council subcommittee investigated and recommended dismissal for academic dishonesty. The Medical Student Evaluation Committee unanimously recommended Chenari’s dismissal. The Medical School Dean met with Chenari and upheld that recommendation. Chenari unsuccessfully appealed to the Provost, arguing that his conduct lacked “an element of deceit” like “cheat[ing]” or “l[ying].” The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of Chenari’s suit, which alleged breach of contract and discrimination based on his disability, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), 29 U.S.C. 794(a), and 42 U.S.C. 12132. The court noted that Chenari never sought accommodation of his claimed disability under the school’s established procedures. View "Chenari v. George Washington University" on Justia Law

Judicial Watch filed suit against the DOD, alleging that the Department violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, when it failed to release copies of documents related to a 2014 determination by the Secretary of Defense about the transfer of five Guantanamo Bay detainees to Qatar. At issue is a document Judicial Watch believed was entitled: a memo from Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Lumpkin to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. The court agreed with the district court that the memo was a privileged deliberative document and therefore exempt from disclosure under FOIA. In this case, when the memo was drafted, it was both predecisional and deliberative. The court rejected Judicial Watch's claim that the Secretary expressly adopted the memo and thus the court could not treat the memo as a decisional document subject to disclosure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOD" on Justia Law

After Tito refused to bargain with the Union, the Union filed an unfair labor practice complaint. The Board eventually granted summary judgment, ordering Tito to bargain with the Union. Tito petitioned for review and the Board cross-applied for enforcement of its order. At issue is what bargaining unit is appropriate when so varied a workforce seeks union representation. The Board concluded that Tito's employees should be included in a "wall-to-wall" bargaining unit. The court concluded that the Board failed to consider evidence pointing to the absence of the required "community of interest" among them. In this case, the Board's order is not supported by substantial evidence where the Board failed to recognize the unchallenged assertion that Tito's business comprised two discrete halves—a labor side and a recycling services side; the Board failed to consider the lack of interchange among the different types of Tito employees; and the Board overlooked the significant differences among Tito's employees' wages, hours, and other working conditions. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, denied the application for enforcement, and remanded for further proceedings. View "NLRB v. Tito Contractors, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 704, seeking to compel the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to meet its disclosure obligations under the "reading room" provision of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2). The district court dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that, despite some mismatch between the relief sought and the relief available, FOIA offers an "adequate remedy" within the meaning of section 704 such that plaintiff's APA claim is barred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. DOJ" on Justia Law

Continental extracts gas from leased federal land and pays royalties to the Interior Department. An agency within the Interior Department began an administrative proceeding against Continental by issuing an order demanding more than $1.7 million in additional royalties. The district court subsequently dismissed Continental's suit for judicial review of the Department's decision. At issue is whether Continental filed its action more than 180 days after its “receipt of notice” of Interior’s “final decision” pursuant to 30 U.S.C. 1724(j) & (h)(2)(B). The court held that because Continental could not have known the date of final agency action until July 29, 2013, receipt of notice could not have occurred before then. Therefore, the court concluded that Continental's complaint was timely. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Continental Resources, Inc. v. Jewell" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 1546(a), which penalizes the knowing possession of an altered document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into the United States. The court concluded that defendant failed to show that his counsel’s conduct at the time of his plea fell below the standard of reasonable competence under the first prong of Strickland v. Washington; under the rule of contemporary assessment, counsel had reason to conclude that section 1546(a) encompasses foreign passports; reasonably competent counsel could have understood section 1546(a), in view of its statutory and regulatory predicates, to criminalize the knowing possession of an altered foreign passport that had expired; and by advising a guilty plea counsel ensured that defendant avoided a mandatory two-year sentence on the count that the government agreed to dismiss in exchange for defendant's plea to a count with fourteen months' maximum imprisonment under the Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Vyner" on Justia Law

Woodcrest seeks to set aside the Board's order requiring it to bargain with the Union and to remand for a new election. The court rejected Woodcrest's claims that the denial of its request to subpoena six individuals irreparably prejudiced its case; that the Hearing Officer abused his discretion when he refused to permit eight, already-subpoenaed witnesses to testify; and that the Hearing Officer abused his discretion by refusing to allow Woodcrest to treat Vergel de Dios as a hostile witness. Therefore, the court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion and denied Woodcrest's request to set aside the Board's order and to remand with direction for a new election. The court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement of the same order. View "800 River Road Operating Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 30 months in prison after revocation of his supervised release based on drug charges in Maryland. Defendant appealed. The court held that defendant failed to show clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights based on a likelihood that the sentencing court's obvious errors affected his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kenny" on Justia Law