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

Jody Ducote co-piloted a passenger-carrying flight round-trip between the United States and the Bahamas but he was not qualified to pilot or co-pilot the flight. Ducote admitted both that he improperly piloted the Bahamas flights and that there was a material discrepancy between his personal flight log and the one he gave to the FAA. The FAA issued an emergency order revoking Ducote's pilot license, but the NTSB dismissed the Administration's complaint for failure to plead with sufficient factual specificity the seriousness of the violations. The court concluded that the Board’s interpretation and application of its stale complaint rule to dismiss Count 4 of the Administrator’s complaint marks an unexplained departure from prior precedent that is unsustainable under the plain text of the Board’s regulation; the Board relied on a finding never made by the ALJ to dismiss Count 3, rendering its reasoning entirely bankrupt; and therefore, the court vacated those portions of the Board’s decision, and remanded to the Board for further proceedings. Accordingly, the court granted the Administrator’s petition for review. View "Huerta v. Ducote" on Justia Law

IPG, representative of several copyright owners in the 2000-03 royalty fee distribution proceeding, alleged that the Board erred in determining IPG's royalty fees in the sports programming and program suppliers categories. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that the orders at issue are subject to judicial review as part of the Board’s final determination and therefore, the court has jurisdiction to review the merits of the appeal. The court concluded that an evidentiary sanction that the Board imposed during the preliminary evidentiary hearing is not arbitrary and capricious where the Board reasonably responded to a blatant discovery violation by IPG; no basis exists for overturning the Board’s reasoned decision to reject IPG’s sports programming claims on behalf of FIFA and the U.S. Olympic Committee; and the court rejected IPG's contentions that the Board improperly relied on the MPAA's methodology for calculating the relative marketplace value of their claims and allocating royalty fees within the program suppliers category. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Independent Producers Group v. Library of Congress" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a federal prison inmate, filed suit alleging that the BOP failed to adequately respond to his requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., and that several policies adopted by the BOP violate the Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment for the BOP on the FOIA claims and dismissed the constitutional claims. The court concluded that because it cannot determine whether the BOP conducted an adequate search based upon the declarations in the record, the judgment of the district court on the Code 408 FOIA claim is vacated and the court remanded for further proceedings. The court held that sovereign immunity does not bar plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the BOP and the individual defendants in their official capacities; plaintiff exhausted all the administrative remedies “available” to him with respect to his claim that defendants unlawfully retained interest earned on money held in inmates’ deposit accounts; the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim that the prices charged for commissary items and telephone calls are “too high;” the court vacated the district court’s order insofar as it dismisses plaintiff’s claim that Code 334 is unconstitutional and remanded for further proceedings; and the court affirmed as to the remaining claims. View "DeBrew v. Atwood" on Justia Law

The underlying suit alleges that the District does not provide adequate opportunity for community-based care to the District’s Medicaid beneficiaries who are currently receiving long-term care in nursing homes. Petitioner seeks permission to file an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court's decision to certify the class. The court concluded that the District has not met its burden under the grounds for review it invoked to show “manifest error” by the District Court. Accordingly, the court denied the petition to permit an appeal of class certification and the court did not not reach the merits of the District’s substantive claims of error. View "In Re: District of Columbia" on Justia Law

After prevailing in their administrative proceedings, appellants sought from DCPS payment for attorney fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1415(i)(3)(B), fee-shifting provision at the rate of $250 per hour. The district court rejected the claim to more than $90 per hour - the statutory rate in the D.C. Criminal Justice Act, D.C. Code 11-2604(a) - and held that the promise of payment in the court appointments foreclosed any greater recovery. The court agreed with appellants that nothing in the orders appointing counsel can preempt IDEA fee shifting, and that the fallback compensation offered by the D.C. Courts is not a proper factor in determining the hourly rate for statutory fee shifting. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions. View "Price v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of numerous violent crimes including first-degree murder, appealed the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. The court rejected defendant's contention that the limitations period of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1), was tolled until 2009 because, until the court's decision in Williams v. Martinez, the court's case law barred him from bringing his claim in federal court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition and dismissal of the action. View "Head v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Prairie State challenges the Commission’s decision to sustain the Secretary’s citations against it for operating without approved, mine-specific plans for roof support and ventilation at Prairie State’s underground coal mine at Lively Grove in southern Illinois. Principally at issue was which standard the Commission should use when it reviews the Secretary’s citation of an operator for failure to follow an approved, mine-specific plan. The court assumed, without deciding, that Chevron governs the court's consideration of that question, as Prairie State failed to contest the Secretary’s assertion that it does. The court held that the Secretary’s judgments regarding the suitability of mine-specific safety plans are entitled to deference under the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and reject the further claims of error. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Prairie State Generating Com. v. Secretary of Labor" on Justia Law

This case arose out of the Tax Court’s determination that Petaluma was a sham entity and so would be disregarded for tax purposes, resulting in the potential imposition of penalties against individual partners for underreporting their taxable income. At issue in this third appeal was whether the Tax Court had jurisdiction at the current, partnership-level stage to determine the applicability of the penalties to the individual partners, or whether that determination instead must await the commencement of separate, partner-level proceedings against each partner. Assuming that a regulation in fact is necessary to create jurisdiction in the Tax Court, the court concluded that a different (and permanent) regulation is the operative one for purposes of conferring jurisdiction. Therefore, the court concluded that the Tax Court had jurisdiction to decide the applicability of penalties to Petaluma's partners. View "Petaluma FX Partners v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

This appeal involves a Son of BOSS tax shelter, which abuses the partnership form of doing business by “employ[ing] a series of transactions to create artificial financial losses that are used to offset real financial gains, thereby reducing tax liability.” At issue was whether and when the Tax Court may apply a penalty to a taxpayer who underpays his taxes by participating in a partnership that was nothing more than an intricate tax shelter. In this case, the parties recognize that United States v. Woods answered the questions about the Tax Court’s jurisdiction over penalties and outside basis. Taxpayer concedes rightly that the Tax Court properly applied his penalty when that court conducted its review of the partnership and its items, and the court affirmed the Tax Court on this point. In turn, the IRS acknowledges correctly that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to determine that the Tigers Eye partners had no basis in the partnership, and the court reversed the portion of the Tax Court’s decision that did so. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Logan Trust v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

Five defendants, convicted of charges related to their involvement in a massive drug distribution organization and sentenced to life imprisonment, appealed their convictions and sentences. On appeal, defendants raise numerous issues. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdicts; the omission of a sentence that the parties had agreed to include in the jury instructions did not render the jury instructions erroneous; the court rejected defendants' joinder arguments, concluding that the indictment alleged that the local and federal offenses were committed as part of a common scheme or plan; any error in admitting the testimony of a certain FBI agent was harmless; there was no plain error in admitting autopsy reports; the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding defendants' expert testimony; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to conduct a mid-trial voir dire of the jury; the court will not disturb the district court's well-supported determination that the alleged improper juror activity did not occur; defendants failed to carry their burden of establishing the appearance or existence of judicial bias and the district judge did not abuse his discretion by denying the motion to recuse; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant Edelin's motion to discharge counsel. The court vacated Defendant Edelin and Johnsons' sentence under Booker; remanded Defendant Bostick and Marbury's sentence to determine whether the district court would impose different sentences, more favorable to defendants, under the advisory Guidelines; and affirmed Defendant Edelin's sentence. View "United States v. Bostick" on Justia Law