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

Plaintiff filed suit seeking damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, alleging that IRS employees barred him from representing taxpayers before the Service without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The district court dismissed the case because the Internal Revenue Code's remedial scheme for tax practicitioners foreclosed a Bivens action. The court did not reach the issue and ruled on the alternative ground that plaintiff failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because his complaint contains no allegation that defendants deprived him of a constitutionally protected interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bowman v. Iddon" on Justia Law

Under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) became the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2012, FHFA and Treasury adopted the Third Amendment to their stock purchase agreement, which replaced the fixed 10% dividend with a formula by which Fannie and Freddie just paid to Treasury an amount (roughly) equal to their quarterly net worth. Plaintiffs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stockholders, filed suit alleging that FHFA's and Treasury's alteration of the dividend formula through the Third Amendment exceeded their statutory authority under the Recovery Act, and constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). The court held that plaintiffs' statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act's strict limitation on judicial review; the court rejected most of plaintiffs' common law claims; insofar as the court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' common-law claims against Treasury, and Congress has waived the agency's immunity from suit, those claims are also barred by the Recovery Act's limitation on judicial review; in regard to claims against FHFA and the Companies, some are barred because FHFA succeeded to all rights, powers, and privileges of the stockholders under the Recovery Act, and others failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; and, as to the remaining claims, which are contract-based claims regarding liquidation preferences and dividend rights, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Perry Capital LLC v. Mnuchin" on Justia Law

Defendants Borda and Alvaran-Velez appealed their convictions under 21 U.S.C. 959, 960, 963 of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine knowing and intending that the cocaine would be unlawfully imported into the United States. Defendants raised numerous issues on appeal. The court rejected defendants' claims of procedural errors, including improper evidentiary admissions and exclusions, insufficient jury instructions, Brady and Napue violations, and improper closing arguments. Therefore, the court affirmed defendants' convictions. The court rejected Alvaran's contentions of error but remanded nonetheless for resentencing. In this case, after Alvaran was sentenced, the Sentencing Commission lowered the Guidelines range for certain offenses involving cocaine, and permitted district courts to apply these lower ranges retroactively (Amendment 782). The government agreed to Alvaran's request for resentencing. The court rejected defendants' remaining claims. View "United States v. Borda" on Justia Law

Relator filed suit against KBR, alleging violations of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729(a), based on KBR's alleged inflation of "headcount" data from July 2004 to March 2005. The headcount data purported to track how many U.S. troops frequented KBR's recreation centers at certain camps in Iraq. The district court granted summary judgment to KBR. The court took into account the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, and agreed with the district court's conclusion that relator failed to offer evidence that any misrepresentation regarding headcount data (if one existed) was material to the Government's decision to pay KBR. View "United States ex rel. McBride v. Halliburton" on Justia Law

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