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

Defendant pleaded guilty to injuring a dwelling and placing lives in jeopardy, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's inadvertent indication on the written judgment of conviction that defendant register as a sex offender, and challenged the sentence as substantively and procedurally unreasonable. Because the government had not asked the court to enforce the appeal waiver regarding the sex offender registration requirement, the court addressed defendant's challenge on the merits and remanded to the district court to conform the written judgment to the oral sentence. However, the court agreed with the government that defendant validly waived his right to appeal the reasonableness of his sentence and dismissed defendant's challenge to his term of imprisonment. View "United States v. Ortega-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a law firm, provided legal services to three companies owned and managed by defendants. After defendants failed to pay legal bills, the law firm filed suit and prevailed. The court concluded that the Confession of Judgment entered in Michigan state court had no preclusive effect and therefore did not bar the current suit under principles of res judicata; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying amendment; the Retention Letter did not incorporate the Promissory Note’s choice-of-law and attorney’s fee clauses; and D.C. law applies to the Retention Letter and does not preclude the law firm from recovering fees incurred while representing itself. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bode & Grenier, LLP v. Knight" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics action against the FBI, alleging that the FBI violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights when they detained, interrogated, and tortured him over the course of four months in three African countries. The district court dismissed the suit. The court held that in this case, where the agents' actions took place during a terrorism investigation and those actions occurred overseas, special factors counsel hesitation in recognizing a Bivens action for money damages.Two special factors are present in this case. First, special factors counseling hesitation have foreclosed Bivens remedies in cases “involving the military, national security, or intelligence.” Second, the Supreme Court has never “created or even favorably mentioned a nonstatutory right of action for damages on account of conduct that occurred outside the borders of the United States.” The court further concluded that the weight of authority against expanding Bivens combined with the court's recognition that tort remedies in cases involving matters of national security and foreign policy are generally left to the political branches, counsels serious hesitation before recognizing a common law remedy in these circumstances. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of dismissal because plaintiff has not stated a valid cause of action. View "Meshal v. Higgenbotham" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of ammunition by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant. In this case, based on his girlfriend's statement that defendant was the owner of the bag containing the bullets, the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant constructively possessed the ammunition, and based on defendant's phone call from the police interview room where he instructed his girlfriend to conceal contraband. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law

Sierra Club filed suit against the government seeking to set aside several federal agencies' regulatory approvals relating to the Flanagan South pipeline and to enjoin the pipeline's construction and operation in reliance on any such approvals. The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief and entered summary judgment in favor of the agencies and Enbridge. The court held that the federal government was not required to conduct National Environment Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, analysis of the entirety of the Flanagan South pipeline, including portions not subject to federal control or permitting; the court rejected Sierra Club’s Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387, challenge to the Corps’s verifications of Flanagan South’s water crossings under Nationwide Permit 12 because the Corps was authorized to conduct its review on a regional rather than nationwide basis, and the Corps’s District Managers adequately supported their verification decisions; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sierra Club’s motion to supplement and amend its complaint, because the proposed new allegations would not have affected the dispositive legal analysis. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps" on Justia Law

The SEC brought an administrative proceeding against George Jarkesy, Jr., for securities fraud. Meanwhile, Jarkesy filed this suit seeking the administrative proceeding's termination, arguing that the proceeding’s initiation and conduct infringe his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that Congress, by establishing a detailed statutory scheme providing for an administrative proceeding before the Commission plus the prospect of judicial review in a court of appeals, implicitly precluded concurrent district-court jurisdiction over challenges like Jarkesy’s. In Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, the Supreme Court set forth a framework for determining when a statutory scheme of administrative and judicial review forecloses parallel district-court jurisdiction. Applying the considerations outlined in Thunder Basin and its progeny, the court found that Congress intended exclusivity when it established the statutory scheme. Consequently, instead of obtaining judicial review of his challenges to the Commission’s administrative proceeding now, Jarkesy can secure judicial review in a court of appeals when (and if) the proceeding culminates in a resolution against him. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Jarkesy, Jr. v. SEC" on Justia Law

The district court determined as a matter of law that the District’s efforts “to combat gun violence and promote public safety” by means of its registration laws were “constitutionally permissible.” Plaintiffs challenged the district court's admission of, and its reliance upon, certain expert reports proffered by the District and the final order denying plaintiffs' and granting the District’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that the admission of the challenged expert reports was not an abuse of discretion. The court affirmed with respect to the basic registration requirement as applied to long guns, D.C. Code 7- 2502.01(a); the requirement that a registrant be fingerprinted and photographed and make a personal appearance to register a firearm, D.C. Code 7-2502.04; the requirement that an individual pay certain fees associated with the registration of a firearm, D.C. Code 7-2502.05; and the requirement that registrants complete a firearms safety and training course, D.C. Code 7-2502.03(a)(13). The court reversed with respect to the requirement that a person bring with him the firearm to be registered, D.C. Code 7- 2502.04(c); the requirement that a gun owner re-register his firearm every three years, D.C. Code 7-2502.07a; the requirement that conditions registration of a firearm upon passing a test of knowledge of the District’s firearms laws, D.C. Code 7-2502.03(a)(10); and the prohibition on registration of “more than one pistol per registrant during any 30-day period,” D.C. Code 7-2502.03(e). View "Heller v. DC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, Amtrak, alleging that it discriminated against him because of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and District of Columbia law. The district court granted summary judgment to Amtrak. After the engine plaintiff was driving passed a stop signal at the rail yard and was forced off the rails by a safety derailer, Amtrak fired him and suspended his engineer certificate. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that no jury could reasonably conclude based on the evidence in the record that Amtrak was motivated by plaintiff's race to take the adverse actions of which he complains. View "Burley v. Nat'l Passenger Rail Corp." on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of the Department of the Interior’s misadministration of Native American trust accounts and an ensuing complex, nationwide litigation and settlement. The class action representatives appealed the district court's denial of compensation for expenses incurred during the litigation and settlement process. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of additional compensation for expenses for the lead plaintiff because the district court expressly wrapped those costs into an incentive award given to her earlier. However, the district court erred in categorically rejecting as procedurally barred the class representatives’ claim for the recovery of third-party payments, and remanded for the district court to apply its accumulated expertise and discretion to the question of whether third-party compensation can and should be paid under the Settlement Agreement. View "Cobell v. Jewell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a freelance journalist, filed suit against the Secretary of Defense and subordinating officers in both the present appeal, reversal of the memorandum terminating his embed status and reinstatement of his credentials and accommodation status. Plaintiff's status was withdrawn and he was returned to the United States after he reported on a controversial shooting incident at an adjoining Afghan national army base over the military personnel's objections. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims, concluding that plaintiff failed to assert a cognizable claim where plaintiff failed to show constitutional entitlement to the status of embed journalist. Further, the court noted that, even if it erred in determining that plaintiff brought no justifiable claim in the first instance, any claim which he may have asserted is now moot. View "Anderson v. Carter" on Justia Law