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

After the United States prevailed in a civil action brought pursuant to the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729, based on certifications by MWI to the Bank to secure loans financing MWI's sale of water pumps to Nigeria, a jury awarded the government $7.5 million in damages. The damages were trebled to $22.5 million pursuant to the FCA. Because an FCA defendant is entitled to an offset from the trebled damages by any amount paid to compensate the government for the harm caused by the false claims, and the district court considered Nigeria’s repayment of the loan to be compensatory, MWI’s damages were reduced from $22.5 million to $0. The district court did impose civil penalties at the highest level. The government appealed and MWI cross-appealed. The court reversed the judgment because the government failed to establish that MWI knowingly made a false claim. Absent evidence that the Bank, or other government entity, had officially warned MWI away from its otherwise facially reasonable interpretation of an undefined and ambiguous term, the FCA’s objective knowledge standard, as the Supreme Court clarified while this litigation was pending in Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr, did not permit a jury to find that MWI “knowingly” made a false claim. View "United States ex rel. Purcell v. MWI Corp." on Justia Law

Defendants Cordova, Gutierrez, and Sorto appealed their convictions for conspiracy, violent crimes in aid of racketeering, murder, assault, and federal and District of Columbia weapons offenses. The court rejected defendants' argument that the court-imposed restrictions limiting their personal access to certain discovery documents deprived them of their Sixth Amendment rights to effective representation and to assist in their defense because defendants suffered no plausible prejudice. The court concluded that the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in declining to recuse himself in response to an allegedly threatening letter; the district court did not plainly err by holding its preliminary jury instruction conference outside the presence of defendants and plaintiffs have failed to show prejudice in support of their claim that the off-the-record proceeding deprived them of effective representation; and defendants are not entitled to a new trial where the court found that the district court's dismissal of defendants' second appointed attorneys was neither contrary to the statute nor an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cordova" on Justia Law

Western Minnesota and intervenors petitioned for review of FERC's award of a permit for a hydroelectric project in Polk County, Iowa. The Commission concluded that the municipal preference under Section 7(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 800(a), applies only to municipalities “located in the[] vicinity” of the water resources to be developed. Petitioners claimed that the Commission’s geographic proximity test is an impermissible interpretation of the plain text of the statute. The court agreed that Congress has spoken directly to the question in defining “municipality” in Section 3(7) of the FPA. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the permit order and rehearing order, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Western Minnesota Municipal v. FERC" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis, seeking to vacate his conviction for federal wire fraud on the ground that his attorney failed to properly advise him about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. The district court denied relief partly because the district court believed appellant was unable to show prejudice. The court concluded that appellant's first contention that his lawyer’s performance was deficient because he failed to “negotiate an effective plea bargain” and to “mitigate harm under the plea agreement[.]” was foreclosed by Padilla v. Kentucky and Chaidez v. United States. The court concluded that it makes no sense to suggest that although defense attorneys had no duty to advise their clients about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty prior to Padilla, they nonetheless had a duty to research those consequences and take them into account when negotiating a plea deal. In regard to appellant's contention that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by affirmatively misrepresenting the potential immigration consequences of a conviction, the court concluded that the district court should not have denied the petition based solely on the timing of defense counsel’s misrepresentations. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Newman" on Justia Law

Appellant seeks information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, relating principally to his detention in Yemen from four federal agencies. After filing suit to compel disclosure, the district court granted summary judgment to the agencies and denied appellant's motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that it has jurisdiction to consider appellant’s challenges to the district court’s grants of summary judgment in the FBI and the CIA cases. On the merits, the court concluded that the FBI had performed an adequate search in response to the FOIA request; the FBI and CIA did not waive their application of FOIA Exemption I; and the FBI properly classified certain responsive records after it received his FOIA request. The court rejected appellant's challenges under the Privacy Act where the FBI's declarations satisfied the requirements of Doe v. FBI and the documents withheld by the CIA were not housed in a “system of records” and therefore are beyond the reach of the Privacy Act. Finally, the court found unpersuasive appellant's contention that the district court abused its discretion when it twice declined to review in camera an FBI document, which he claims was improperly classified. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mobley v. CIA" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks review of the Board's conclusion that petitioner's refusal to reinstate the striking workers was itself an unfair labor practice and order of reinstatement. The court denied the petition and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement, concluding that the Board’s categorization of the strike as an unfair labor practice strike is supported by substantial evidence showing that at least part of the employees’ motive to strike was petitioner’s unlawful refusal to reinstate an employee who had been unlawfully discharged. The court also concluded that the Board was reasonable in concluding that the employees’ respect for a prior contractual agreement did not convert their otherwise lawful strike into an unprotected partial strike, and ample evidence supports the Board's conclusion that the labor relations of two entities, SM and SMI, were centrally controlled. View "Spurlino Materials v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Appellant received his 2006 income tax refund twice and the IRS sought to recover the erroneous refund by levy. At the tax court stage, the IRS conceded that the levy was an improper collection method, zeroed out appellant's disputed tax liability and moved to dismiss the case as moot. Appellant objected to the dismissal. Appellant argued that, because he paid $5,100 to the IRS during the course of the administrative proceedings and he is entitled to a return of those funds, this controversy precludes dismissal on mootness grounds. The court affirmed the tax court's rejection of appellant's argument, concluding that the abeyance of a pending levy meant that no case or controversy remained. In this case, appellant has received all the relief that 26 U.S.C. 6330 authorizes the tax court to grant him, and he must seek relief in the Court of Federal Claims for the disputed $5,100. View "Willson v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

Hyundai challenged the Board's order invalidating five rules in the employee handbook maintained by Hyundai because the rules violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 157, 158(a)(1). The Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Canning made clear that the three Board members on the panel in this case were validly appointed, and the court restored the case to its active docket after placing it in abeyance. The court found that the Board had jurisdiction over the claims against four rules - ones that the complaint linked to the dismissal by asserting that Hyundai discharged an employee because of her violations of those rules. In regard to the fifth rule, however, the court concluded that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the General Counsel never alleged it to have played a causal role in the dismissal. Therefore, as to the four rules properly before the Board, the court enforced the Board’s order as to three but reversed as to the fourth. View "Hyundai Amer. Shipping Agency v. NLRB" on Justia Law

EPA exercised its authority under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q, to issue a Final Rule designating 29 areas as not meeting its new sulfur dioxide standards. Treasure State Resource Industry Association challenged the one designation for part of Yellowstone County, Montana, and U.S. Steel challenged the one for part of Wayne County, Michigan. The court upheld the Final Rule's designation of part of Yellowstone County as nonattainment and rejected the Association's argument that the data on which EPA relied were so unreliable that its reliance was arbitrary and capricious, and the Association's argument that EPA's application of the Act was retroactive within the meaning of Landgraf v. U.S.I. Film Products. The court rejected the Association's remaining claims. The court concluded that U.S. Steel meets the requirements of standing by demonstrating a rederessable injury in fact, and rejected EPA's argument that its Final Rule is not final. On the merits, the court upheld EPA's designation of part of Wayne County as nonattainment because the court found neither a violation of the Act nor any arbitrariness in EPA's action. The court denied the petitions for review of the Final Rule and EPA's denial of petitions for reconsideration. View "Treasure State Resource v. EPA" on Justia Law

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, a professional association of certified public accountants and their firms, challenged an IRS program that allows previously uncredentialed tax return preparers who take required courses and fulfill other prerequisites to obtain a “Record of Completion.” The program also requires them to have their names listed in the IRS’s online “Directory of Federal Tax Return Preparers.” The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III standing, finding that the Institute lacks actual or imminent harm. The court concluded that the Institute has adequately alleged the program will subject its members to an actual or imminent increase in competition and that it therefore has standing to pursue its challenge. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "American Institute of Certified Public Accountants v. IRS" on Justia Law