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

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to two sex offenses. On appeal, defendant mainly asserted that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to tell the Departure Committee the complete "nature and extent" of his cooperation. The court affirmed the judgment because defendant identified no difference between the information he concedes the prosecutor provided to the Committee and what he believes the prosecutor should have provided, and because the prosecutor summarized for the district court both the information that the prosecutor presented to the Committee and the Committee's basis for declining to approve the departure motion. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed two 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) motions with the court seeking certification to file successive motions in the district court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court concluded that petitioner has made a prima facie showing that his Graham v. Florida motion satisfied the necessary requirements for the court's certification. How Graham applies to a case concerning a crime that straddled the age of majority is a question for the district court in the first instance. Further, petitioner has made a prima facie showing that his Miller v. Alabama motion satisfies the necessary requirements for the court's certification. The government's question of whether the new rule in Miller extends to a prisoner like petitioner, who entered a conspiracy in his juvenile years and exited it in adulthood, goes to the merits of the motion and is for the district court. View "In re: Williams" on Justia Law

Appellants challenged the IRS's interpretation of 26 U.S.C. 36B, enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). The district court held that the ACA's text, structure, purpose, and legislative history make "clear that Congress intended to make premium tax credits available on both state-run and federally-facilitated Exchanges." The district court held that even if the ACA were ambiguous, the IRS's regulation would represent a permissible construction entitled to Chevron deference. The court concluded, however, that the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges "established by the State." Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and vacated the IRS's regulation. View "Halbig v. Burwell" on Justia Law

The Village petitioned for review of the Board's denial of its request to reopen a 2008 proceeding in which the Board approved a railroad's acquisition of a Chicago-area railway company. The Village sought to reopen the proceeding based on a new study on traffic projection, based in part on post-acquisition traffic conditions. The court denied the petition for review because it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Village's claims of material error and because the Board did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the Village's new evidence did not warrant reopening of the Board's original decision. View "Village of Barrington, IL v. STB, et al." on Justia Law

The SEC sought a court order compelling SIPC to liquidate a member broker-dealer, SGC. SGC played an integral role in a multibillion-dollar financial fraud carried out through a web of companies. At issue was whether SIPC could instead be ordered to proceed against SGC to protect the CD investors' property. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the application to order SIPC to liquidate SGC where, under the Securities Investor Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(a)(1), the CD investors did not qualify as customers of SGC under the operative statutory definition. View "SEC v. Securities Investor Protection Corp." on Justia Law

In 1998, the United States brought enforcement actions in district court against seven major engine manufacturers, alleging that they had been using "defeat devices" to meet EPA standards for emissions of oxides of nitrogen. The parties settled and most of the manufacturers agreed to be bound by consent decrees. The manufacturers also agreed to comply with certain EPA emissions standards earlier than EPA regulations otherwise required. Volvo Powertrain now argues that the consent decree has no application to the Volvo Penta engines. The court agreed with the district court that the consent decree applied to the Volvo Penta engines manufactured at the Volvo Powertrain plant where the court read the terms of the consent decree to impose liability on Volvo Powertrain for its affiliate's engines manufactured at its facility. The court also concluded that the district court committed no abuse of discretion when it ordered Volvo Powertrain to pay approximately $72 million as a remedy for the violations of the decree. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Volvo Powertrain Corp." on Justia Law

FirstEnergy, acting on behalf of its affiliates (ATSI), filed a complaint with FERC contending that the imposition of costs from transferring from one Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) to another on ATSI was unjust and unreasonable. The Commission disagreed and dismissed the complaint. FirstEnergy then petitioned for review. The court denied the petition for review because FirstEnergy failed to carry its burden under section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e), that Schedule 12 of PJM's, the RTO FirstEnergy transferred to, tariff was unjust and unreasonable as applied to ATSI. View "FirstEnergy Service Co. v. FERC" on Justia Law

Interstate Fire filed suit against Greenspring and others, alleging that defendants owed a duty under a Greenspring general liability policy to provide primary insurance coverage for a nurse hired by a staffing agency and assigned to work at a hospital on a temporary basis. Greenspring had issued an insurance policy providing coverage to employees of the hospital for claims arising out of medical incidents within the scope of their employment. The court agreed with the district court that the dictionary definition and a common law test supports the conclusion that the nurse qualified as an "employee" of the hospital. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments and concluded that Interstate Fire was entitled to reimbursement from Greenspring for the amounts paid to defend and settle the underlying action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Interstate Fire & Casualty Co v. Washington Hospital Center Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, current and former members of the Navy and Marine Corps, filed suit against senior officials in the military and the Department of Defense, alleging that they were raped, sexually assaulted, or sexually harassed by their fellow Sailors and Marines, only to suffer retaliation from their superiors for reporting their plight. The Supreme Court has held that military officials are not subject to personal liability under the Constitution for their management decisions, including the choices they make about the discipline, supervision, and control of servicemembers. The court joined the Fourth Circuit in concluding that no Bivens remedy is available in this instance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit. View "Klay, et al. v. Panetta, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging that he was terminated from his position as a special education teacher because of an email he sent to the chancellor, which contained one sentence that constituted speech protected by the First Amendment. The court concluded that plaintiff was using the email as an internal channel through which he could, in his capacity as a teacher, report interference with his job responsibilities. Therefore, under Winder v. Erste, plaintiff's email constituted employee speech unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, it was not unreasonable for defendants to believe that it was not unlawful to fire plaintiff based on preexisting law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's First Amendment claim. View "Mpoy v. Rhee, et al." on Justia Law