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

Defendant was sentenced to a four-year prison term for violating a condition of his supervised release. The district judge then revoked defendant's term of supervised release and imposed a 30-month term of imprisonment for the original offense that was to run consecutive to the four-year sentence. The court concluded that the district court committed plain error by erroneously invoking the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing and imposing the revocation term as consecutive to rather than concurrent with the new sentence. Accordingly, the court vacated the post-revocation sentence as violating the Ex Post Facto Clause and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Head" on Justia Law

Parents of B.D. filed suit against the District, challenging the adequacy of a compensatory education award and seeking to enforce other portions of the Hearing Officer's Decision, as well as to require the District to secure a therapeutic residential placement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the District. The court concluded that the parents have met their burden of demonstrating that the Hearing Officer, affirmed by the district court, was “wrong,” as he failed to award sufficient compensatory education to put B.D. in the position he would be in absent the free appropriate public education (FAPE) denial; neither 20 U.S.C. 1415(i)(2)(A) nor 28 U.S.C. 1331 provides a cause of action for parents seeking to enforce a favorable hearing officer decision; and the district court correctly held that the request for an injunction - the only relief count three specifically sought - had become moot. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part. View "B.D. v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a pilot, seeks review of the final order of the NTSB that permanently revoked his certificates based on his criminal conviction, contending that the FAA’s earlier administrative action bars the FAA’s permanent revocation order by operation of various preclusion doctrines, double jeopardy, and due process. In this case, petitioner fraudulently sold helicopter rotor blades with maintenance records he had altered to hide the fact that another mechanic had deemed the blades to be unrepairable scrap. The court concluded that 49 U.S.C. 44726(b)(1)(A) plainly authorizes revocation of any airman certificate after a qualifying conviction, even if the FAA unsuccessfully pursued a prior subsection (B) administrative action based on the events underlying the conviction. The court further concluded that revocation of airman certificates in those circumstances is a civil, remedial measure aimed at protecting public safety that does not offend principles of preclusion, double jeopardy, or due process. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Lauterbach v. Huerta" on Justia Law

Maher, a marine terminal operator, challenges a decision of the Commission authorizing preferential lease terms to a competitor, APM-Maersk. The court concluded that, assuming arguendo that the Commission adequately responded to Maher’s contention that the same rates should be extended to it, the Commission’s explanation as to why APM-Maersk’s preference was based on a “transportation factor” was hopelessly convoluted, particularly in light of its precedent. The court remanded the case to the Commission for a more adequate explanation of its decision and policy. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded. View "Maher Terminals, LLC v. FMC" on Justia Law

The Postal Service challenged the Commission's denial of its request to have one of the Service's products, the "round-trip mailer," used in the DVD-by-mail industry, classified as competitive rather than market-dominant. The Postal Service contends that streaming services and DVD-by-mail services compete with each other and, under antitrust law, should be treated as a single market. The court concluded that the Commission was reasonable in finding that the Postal Service produced no evidence to establish at what point an increase in the price the Service charged would cause Netflix and Gamefly to look elsewhere for distribution. The Service enjoys market power in the (upstream) distribution market regardless of conditions in the (downstream) content market because it does not face any competition in the distribution market. The court rejected the Postal Service's claim that Netflix has sufficient economic clout to counter the Service's market power because Netflix and GameFly have no alternative means to transport DVDs by mail. Finally, the court concluded that the Commission was not unreasonable to hold that the potential technological evolution suggested by the Service was too speculative to condition its market power analysis here. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "USPS v. PRC" on Justia Law

The Board held that Dover Blackmer committed an unfair labor practice when it warned an employee, Tom Kaanta, to stop submitting "frivolous" information requests that his union had not authorized. The court concluded that the Board’s conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Here, the warning made plain it sought one thing - to stop Kaanta’s “continued,” “frivolous” information requests that the Board does not dispute were outside the scope of his steward duties and that his Union had expressly disapproved. No reasonable employee in Kaanta’s position could read it otherwise. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and denied the cross-application for enforcement. View "Dover Energy, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenges a joint regulation implementing a section of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. 78o-11. Congress added that particular section to the Exchange Act in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), Pub. L. No. 111-203, 941, 124 Stat. 1376. The court concluded that the Exchange Act provides a limited grant of jurisdiction, and only rules implementing specific, enumerated sections of the Act are entitled to direct review. Because Congress knew how to add sections to that list, but chose not to do so here, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the court transferred the petitions “in the interest of justice” to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. View "The Loan Syndications Assoc. v. SEC" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenges a joint regulation implementing a section of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. 78o-11. Congress added that particular section to the Exchange Act in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), Pub. L. No. 111-203, 941, 124 Stat. 1376. The court concluded that the Exchange Act provides a limited grant of jurisdiction, and only rules implementing specific, enumerated sections of the Act are entitled to direct review. Because Congress knew how to add sections to that list, but chose not to do so here, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the court transferred the petitions “in the interest of justice” to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. View "The Loan Syndications Assoc. v. SEC" on Justia Law

Relator filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, contending that Record Press had submitted a fraudulent bill for printing services to the government. The district court granted judgment for Record Press. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion because there was no evidence that Record Press had submitted any false claims with knowledge it was doing so, as would be required for liability under the Act. In this case, the district court properly considered testimony and evidence indicating that the government agreed with Record Press about the disputed contract rate. Further, the district court did not consider the government’s understanding of the contract as part of any defense. Rather, it relied on the government’s agreement with Record Press about the proper understanding of the contract as evidence that there had been no fraudulent behavior in the first place. The court remanded for further proceedings on Record Press’s motion for attorneys’ fees because the district court did not make the findings necessary to enable the court to review its grounds for denying a fee award. View "United States v. Record Press, Inc." on Justia Law

Michael Boulware, the president and sole owner of two companies, was convicted of tax evasion and tax fraud. The companies paid for his legal and professional fees in the criminal trial and other litigation. The IRS subsequently issued deficiency notices because Boulware did not report the payments, which totaled approximately $2 million, as income. The Tax Court held that the payments were taxable as corporate distributions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Because Boulware did not post a bond while pursuing his appeals, the IRS immediately collected on his liability. In this appeal, Boulware challenges a Settlement Officer's rejection of his proposed installment agreement and refusal of his request for a face-to-face hearing. The Tax Court upheld the determination. The court concluded that the Settlement Officer did not abuse her discretion by denying a request for an installment agreement when Boulware is not in compliance with his current tax obligations. The court need not decide whether the aggregation of Boulware’s particular circumstances were “special,” Boulware failed to raise the argument during his CDP hearing. Further, nothing in the record supports Boulware's contention that the Settlement Officer improperly considered his criminal conviction for tax evasion in rejecting his proposed installment agreement. Finally, given that Boulware’s failure to comply with his tax obligations made him generally ineligible for a collection alternative, the Settlement Officer's denial of a face-to-face hearing was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Boulware v. Commissioner" on Justia Law