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

Ronnie Leroy Howard appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking immediate release from parole contending that the procedural irregularities relating to parole revocations in 1985 and 2004 warrant habeas corpus relief. The court rejected Howard's argument that the Commission ordered that the first five years of an intervening state sentence would run concurrently with his federal sentence but failed to treat them as concurrent, because Howard misread the Notice of Action. The court rejected Howard's arguments based on his contention that the Commission did not properly execute, or never executed, a 1982 parole violator warrant, because it was immaterial. Finally, the court rejected Howard's contention that the Commission executed a separate 1998 parole violator warrant in 2000 or 2002, but delayed the associated parole revocation hearing until 2004, because Howard raised no grounds warranting reversal. Because Howard's claims failed on the merits, the court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief. View "Howard v. Caufield, et al." on Justia Law

Sorenson, a leading provider of video relay service (VRS), petitioned for review of the FCC's 2013 Rate Order as arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(a). The court found no fault with the new rates because the 2013 Rate Order is not arbitrary and capricious for ignoring costs incurred unnecessarily, even when the consequence for the provider that incurred those costs might be ruinous. However, Sorenson has demonstrated that additional consideration by the FCC is necessary in regards to providing service under the more demanding speed-of-answer requirement that the agency adopted as part of the 2013 Rate Order. Therefore, the court vacated the new speed-of-answer requirement and remanded that portion of the Order. In regard to tiered rates, the court held that the FCC adequately justified the 500,000- and 1,000,000-minute cut-offs. The court deferred to the FCC's decision concerning the tiered structure because the task of balancing the goals of setting rates to reflect economies of scale and transitioning the industry from rate regulation to competitive bidding is fairly within the discretion of the agency. View "Sorenson Communications, Inc., et al. v. FCC, et al." on Justia Law

The Tribe filed claims in 2005 against the Department for unpaid contract support costs that accrued from 1996 through 1998. At issue was whether the Tribe may sue under the doctrine of equitable tolling even though the statute of limitations has lapsed. The court concluded that the Tribe's claims were barred by the statute of limitations because the legal misunderstandings and tactical mistakes the Tribe identified did not amount to extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable tolling. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Menominee Indian Tribe v. United States" on Justia Law

Relator filed suit under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, alleging that the HP products Govplace sold to the federal government originated from non-designated countries, in violation of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (TAA), 19 U.S.C. 2501-2581. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Govplace, concluding that the district court properly exercised its discretion in managing discovery and that Govplace reasonably relied on Ingram Micro's certification. The court concluded that a contractor like Govplace is ordinarily entitled to rely on a supplier's certification that the product meets TAA requirements. In this case, Govplace has informed the GSA during multiple Contractor Administrator Visits that it relies on Ingram Micro's Program in representing that the country of origin information for the items listed in its GSA schedule is accurate, and GSA's Administrative Report Cards evaluating Govplace have all concluded that Govplace has complied with the TAA. View "Folliard v. Government Acquisitions, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Kenya in district court for breach of contract based on Kenya's underpayment of rewards owed to him. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1604, barred plaintiff's suit. In this case, Kenya did not waive its immunity in U.S. courts and Kenya's alleged breach of contract lacks the connection to the United States required by the commercial activity exception to the FSIA. View "Odhiambo v. Republic of Kenya, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her 57-year-old teacher at a public high school for emotionally disturbed teens after they were involved in a sexual relationship that resulted in plaintiff being pregnant with his child. Plaintiff also filed suit against the District. On appeal, plaintiff sought review of the district court's order granting the District's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because there was no final judgment within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1291. View "Blue v. DC Public Schools, et al." on Justia Law

The Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824d(c), requires regulated utilities to file with the Commission, as a matter of open and accessible public record, any rates and charges they intend to impose for sales of electrical energy that are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. Consequently, utilities are forbidden to charge any rate other than the one on file with the Commission, a prohibition known as the "filed rate doctrine." At issue on appeal was, when a utility filed more than one rate with the Commission during the time it was negotiating an agreement with a prospective customer, which of the two filed rates governs: the rate at the time negotiations commenced or the rate at the time the agreement was completed? The Commission is of the view that it can pick and choose which rate applies on a case-by-case basis. Because the Commission has provided no reasoned explanation for how its decision comports with statutory direction, prior agency practice, or the purposes of the filed rate doctrine, the court vacated the Commission's orders in part and remanded. View "West Deptford Energy, LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from efforts by various environmental and historical preservation organizations to obtain the Blair Mountain Battlefield's listing in the National Register of Historic Places. After the Battlefield was briefly included in the Register and then removed, the organizations filed suit challenging the Battlefield's removal from the Register. The district court granted summary judgment against the organizations based on their lack of standing. The court concluded, however, that the organizations have adequately demonstrated injury in fact, causation, and redressability. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sierra Club, et al. v. Jewell, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant, the President and CEO of a tobacco company called Medallion, filed a qui tam action against Philip Morris, alleging that Philip Morris violated the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, for failing to provide the government with "Most Favored Customer" pricing. The district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the FCA's public disclosure bar. The court concluded, however, that neither the contract term obligating Philip Morris to provide the government with Most Favored Customer pricing nor Philip Morris's fraudulent certifications that it complied was publicly disclosed. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his sentence and consecutive terms of supervised release under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The district court denied both motions. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over defendant's appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and dismissed that portion of the appeal. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's Rule 36 motion because he failed to assert a clerical error within the meaning of that rule. The court also concluded that 28 U.S.C. 2106 does not authorize the court to grant defendant the relief he seeks. View "United States v. Arrington" on Justia Law