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

Defendants Bell and Wilson, two members of the Congress Park Crew gang, appealed their conviction and sentences for their involvement in various crimes including crack distribution. The court rejected Wilson's argument that substitutions of trial counsel deprived him of effective representation where the court was unpersuaded by his theory of appeal, which hinges on an extension of the doctrine of presumptive prejudice; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of two uncharged murders; the court found no Brady violations based on suppression of certain reports; even considering the cumulative effect of the multiple alleged Brady violations, the untimely or suppressed materials are insufficient to undermine the court's confidence in the jury's verdict or to overcome the Government's evidence; and the court rejected defendants' sentencing challenges where the sentences did not violate the Sixth Amendment and were procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

Inova challenged the Board's ruling that it had unlawfully discharged, disciplined, or failed to promote certain nurses because they had engaged in concerted activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1). The court held that the Board’s unfair labor practice determinations were reasonable, consistent with the law, and supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that the suspension and termination of Donna Miller constituted an unfair labor practice; Inova's warning to Miller not to discuss the suspension constituted an unfair labor practice; Inova's discipline of Judy Giordano for her physical encounter with a human resources employee while protesting Miller's discharge constituted an unfair labor practice; and Inova's failure to promote Cathy Gamble constituted an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, the court denied Inova’s petition to review the Board’s order and granted the Board’s cross-application for enforcement. View "INOVA Health System v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Inova challenged the Board's ruling that it had unlawfully discharged, disciplined, or failed to promote certain nurses because they had engaged in concerted activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1). The court held that the Board’s unfair labor practice determinations were reasonable, consistent with the law, and supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that the suspension and termination of Donna Miller constituted an unfair labor practice; Inova's warning to Miller not to discuss the suspension constituted an unfair labor practice; Inova's discipline of Judy Giordano for her physical encounter with a human resources employee while protesting Miller's discharge constituted an unfair labor practice; and Inova's failure to promote Cathy Gamble constituted an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, the court denied Inova’s petition to review the Board’s order and granted the Board’s cross-application for enforcement. View "INOVA Health System v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging that his employer fired him because he was male. At issue was whether 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) barred plaintiff's suit because he brought it too late. On EEOC Form 5, plaintiff swore that his statements were true and listed his address as “3032 Rodman Street, NW, Apt. 35, Washington, DC 20008.” At the time he was not living at that address. A month earlier he had moved to South Carolina. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that when a complainant, such as plaintiff in this instance, fails to receive a right-to-sue notice because he gave the EEOC an incorrect address or because he neglected to inform the EEOC when he moved, the complainant is at fault and he is not entitled to equitable tolling. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Maggio v. Wisconsin Ave. Psychiatric Ctr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging that his employer fired him because he was male. At issue was whether 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) barred plaintiff's suit because he brought it too late. On EEOC Form 5, plaintiff swore that his statements were true and listed his address as “3032 Rodman Street, NW, Apt. 35, Washington, DC 20008.” At the time he was not living at that address. A month earlier he had moved to South Carolina. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that when a complainant, such as plaintiff in this instance, fails to receive a right-to-sue notice because he gave the EEOC an incorrect address or because he neglected to inform the EEOC when he moved, the complainant is at fault and he is not entitled to equitable tolling. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Maggio v. Wisconsin Ave. Psychiatric Ctr." on Justia Law

The Bank and a group of States challenged the constitutionality of various provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376. The district court concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing and that their claims were not ripe. The court concluded that the Bank has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and that claim is ripe. Therefore, the court reversed as to that claim and remanded for reconsideration in the first instance the Bank’s constitutional challenge to the Bureau. The court also concluded that the Bank has standing to challenge Director Cordray’s recess appointment, and that claim is ripe. Therefore, the court reversed as to that claim and remanded for reconsideration in the first instance the Bank’s constitutional challenge to the recess appointment. The court further concluded that the Bank lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Financial Stability Oversight Council and affirmed the judgment as to that claim. Finally, the court concluded that the State plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Government’s orderly liquidation authority, and that claim is not ripe. Therefore, the court affirmed as to that claim. View "State Nat'l Bank of Big Spring v. Lew" on Justia Law

The Bank and a group of States challenged the constitutionality of various provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376. The district court concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing and that their claims were not ripe. The court concluded that the Bank has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and that claim is ripe. Therefore, the court reversed as to that claim and remanded for reconsideration in the first instance the Bank’s constitutional challenge to the Bureau. The court also concluded that the Bank has standing to challenge Director Cordray’s recess appointment, and that claim is ripe. Therefore, the court reversed as to that claim and remanded for reconsideration in the first instance the Bank’s constitutional challenge to the recess appointment. The court further concluded that the Bank lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Financial Stability Oversight Council and affirmed the judgment as to that claim. Finally, the court concluded that the State plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Government’s orderly liquidation authority, and that claim is not ripe. Therefore, the court affirmed as to that claim. View "State Nat'l Bank of Big Spring v. Lew" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Department, alleging that her new supervisor retaliated against her for earlier discrimination complaints. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department. The supervisor justified plaintiff's low performance ratings on the ground that plaintiff, a managerial employee, failed adequately to supervise satellite offices and external contractors. Further, the supervisor attested that plaintiff was never excluded from meetings and that plaintiff could have attended meetings, but never did. The court concluded that the proffered facts could not, if presented a trial, support a jury verdict that retaliation was the supervisor's real motive for the actions of which plaintiff complains. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Allen v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Department, alleging that her new supervisor retaliated against her for earlier discrimination complaints. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department. The supervisor justified plaintiff's low performance ratings on the ground that plaintiff, a managerial employee, failed adequately to supervise satellite offices and external contractors. Further, the supervisor attested that plaintiff was never excluded from meetings and that plaintiff could have attended meetings, but never did. The court concluded that the proffered facts could not, if presented a trial, support a jury verdict that retaliation was the supervisor's real motive for the actions of which plaintiff complains. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Allen v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of twenty-five counts of aiding or assisting in the filing of a false tax return, appealed his convictions. Defendant alleged that the court improperly instructed the jury and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found no error in the jury instruction regarding I.R.C. 7206(2) or prejudice from the alleged ineffectiveness. Reading the instructions as a whole, the court concluded that the district court’s instruction on good faith “substantially covered” the knowledge element that defendant requested. Therefore, the court affirmed the conviction. Because the government has conceded error in regards to the restitution order, which was improperly calculated, the court remanded for reconsideration of that aspect of defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Udo" on Justia Law