FindLaw Opinion Summaries - 4th Circuit COA

US v. Maroquin-Bran, No. 08-4464

2009-11-09T23:39:14Z

District court's sentencing of a Guatemalan citizen for illegally re-entering the US following deportation to fifty-seven months in prison and three years of supervised release after applying a sixteen level enhancement is vacated and remanded for resentencing as section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) requires a prior conviction for a felony that is a drug trafficking offense, not simply a conviction under a statute that criminalizes drug trafficking as well as other activities.

Read US v. Maroquin-Bran, No. 08-4464

Appellate Information

Argued: September 25, 2009

Decided: November 9, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Motz

Counsel

For Appellant: G. Alan DuBois, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina

For Appellee: Jennifer P. May-Parker, Office of the US Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina

US v. Grubbs, No. 07-5040

2009-11-06T22:39:05Z

District court's sentence of a 240 months imprisonment and a life term of supervised release of a defendant convicted of knowingly transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent to engage in sexual activity and related offenses is affirmed where: 1) district court's use of uncharged conduct in determining defendant's sentence did not violate the Sixth Amendment; 2) district court did not err by relying on uncharged conduct that was proven by preponderance of the evidence standard; and 3) the district court did not commit reversible error in calculating defendant's Guidelines range and the sentence was therefore procedurally reasonable.

Read US v. Grubbs, No. 07-5040

Appellate Information

Argued: September 24, 2009

Decided: November 6, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Agee

Counsel

For Appellant: Matthew Segal, Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Inc.

For Appellee: Adam Christopher Morris, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina

Nken v. Holder, No. 08-1813

2009-10-30T14:18:10Z

Petition for review of the BIA's order denying a citizen of Cameroon's motion to reopen his removal proceedings is granted and the BIA's decision vacated and remanded as the BIA did not explain why petitioner's new evidence failed to demonstrate a change of country conditions.

Read Nken v. Holder, No. 08-1813

Appellate Information

Argued: September 22, 2009

Decided: October 30, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Motz

Counsel

For Appellant: Lindsay Claire Harrison, Jenner & Block, LLP, Washington, DC.

For Appellee: Lindsay E. Williams, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Green-Brown v. Sealand Servs. Inc., No. 08-1236

2009-10-29T22:59:23Z

Plaintiff's petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board of the US Department of Labor, affirming an ALJ's decision that awarded hearing loss compensation to plaintiff under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) based on an audiogram that did not comply with the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), is granted and reversed because section 908(c)(13)(E) of the LHWCA mandates that hearing loss compensation be based on hearing loss determinations made in accordance with the AMA Guides.

Read Green-Brown v. Sealand Servs. Inc., No. 08-1236

Appellate Information

Argued: September 22, 2009

Decided: October 29, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Michael

Counsel

For Appellant: Gregory Edward Camden, Montagna, Klein, Camden, LLP

For Appellee: Patrick Michael Brogan, Davey & Brogan PC.

Kerns v. US, No. 08-1287

2009-10-29T22:55:55Z

In plaintiff's lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that the government's employee negligently caused an automobile accident killing her husband, dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is vacated and remanded as, when the scope-of-employment issue is determinative of both jurisdiction and the underlying merits of an FTCA claim, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is inappropriate.

Read Kerns v. US, No. 08-1287

Appellate Information

Argued: September 22, 2009

Decided: October 29, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge King

Counsel

For Appellant: Paul David Bekman, Salisbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder & Adkins

For Appellees: Ariana Wright Arnord, Baltimore, Maryland

US v. Bush, No. 08-6725

2009-10-29T22:52:27Z

District court's grant of government's motion for an order permitting it to involuntarily medicate defendant to render her competent to stand trial is vacated and remanded as the government had the burden of satisfying the Sell v. US, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), standard by clear and convincing evidence, and when the current state of the record is considered with this higher standard of proof, questions arise as to whether the government carried its burden under Sell.

Read US v. Bush, No. 08-6725

Appellate Information

Argued: September 24, 2009

Decided: October 29, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Niemeyer

Counsel

For Appellant: Marta K. Kahn, Baltimore, Maryland

For Appellee: Bonnie S. Greenberg, Baltimore, Maryland

US v. Armel, No. 08-4700

2009-10-19T22:42:20Z

Defendant's conviction and sentence to thirty months in prison and three-year term of supervised release for threatening federal officials is affirmed but special conditions in connection with supervised release ordering defendant to not possess pornography, not enter places where pornography could be obtained, not have contact with children, and submit to invasive sex offender tests are vacated and remanded as the district court offered scant explanation for any of the challenged special conditions and no explanations for the pornography conditions.

Read US v. Armel, No. 08-4700

Appellate Information

Argued: September 24, 2009

Decided: October 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Motz

Counsel

For Appellant: Mary Elizabeth Maguire, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia

For Appellees: Stephen David Schiller, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia

In re Grand Jury Subpoena: John Doe, No. 06-1572

2009-10-16T16:22:08Z

District court's refusal to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum seeking documents from a sitting Congressman's Chief of Staff is affirmed as, even if the congressional office is deemed to be a sole proprietorship, the Congressman is not entitled to bar his Chief of Staff from producing the documents to a grand jury by invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege, because as a sole proprietor, he could not assert Fifth Amendment privilege to quash a subpoena served on the Chief of Staff who had actual possession of the documents and was responsible for preparing and maintaining them.

Read In re Grand Jury Subpoena: John Doe, No. 06-1572

Appellate Information

Argued: September 18, 2009

Decided: October 15, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge King

Counsel

For Appellant: Amy Berman Jackson, Trout Cacheris PLLC, Washington, DC.

For Appellees: Patty Merkamp Sternler, United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC.

Snider v. Lee, No. 08-1414

2009-10-06T23:12:59Z

In plaintiff's Bivens action against an FBI agent and others arising from her extradition to South Korea for the murder of a fellow exchange student which resulted in an acquittal, district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims except for her Fourth Amendment claim for malicious prosecution is reversed and remanded as the FBI agent is entitled to qualified immunity where plaintiff has not alleged a violation of her constitutional right to be free from malicious prosecution in the United States.

Read Snider v. Lee, No. 08-1414

Appellate Information

Argued: May 12, 2009

Decided: October 6, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Niemeyer

Counsel

For Appellant: Catherine Yvonne, United States Department of Justice

For Appellees: J. Samuel Tenenbaum, Northwestern University School of Law

Snyder v. Phelps, No. 08-1026

2009-09-24T21:00:51Z

In a state tort lawsuit brought by plaintiffs arising from defendants' protest against gays in the military near the funeral for plaintiffs' son who had died in the Iraq war, district court's award of $8 million in compensatory damages and $2.1 million in punitive damages against defendant-Baptist church and members is reversed as the judgment attaches tort liability to constitutionally protected speech, and thus, the district court erred in declining to award defendants judgment as a matter of law.

Read Snyder v. Phelps, No. 08-1026

Appellate Information

Argued: December 2, 2008

Decided: September 24, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge King

Counsel

For Appellant: Margie Jean Phelps.

For Appellees: Sean E. Summers, Barley & Snyder, LLC

SEC v. Pirate Investor LLC, No. 08-1037

2009-09-15T22:18:58Z

In a securities fraud action, district court's order of disgorgement of appellants' profits from the sales of a stock tip, imposition of civil penalties, and injunction against future violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly found that appellants' conduct constituted a violation of Section 10(b) and thus, appellants cannot avoid application of the statute by invoking constitutional concerns because the text and purpose of the section admit of no exception for disinterested publishers; 2) appellants' First Amendment claim fails as punishing fraud, whether it be common law fraud or securities fraud, simply does not violate the First Amendment; and 3) the injunction does not constitute an unlawful prior restraint because it only enjoins appellants from engaging in securities fraud which is unprotected speech.

Read SEC v. Pirate Investor LLC, No. 08-1037

Appellate Information

Argued: December 2, 2008

Decided: September 15, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam Opinion

Counsel

For Appellant: Bruce D. Brown, Baker & Hostetler, LLP., of Washington, DC.

For Appellees: Michael Conley, United States Securities & Exchange Commission, Washington, DC.

Alvaro A. Inigo, Zunka, Milnor, Carter & Ingo, Ltd., Charlottesville, VA

Monroe v. City of Charlottesville, No. 08-1334

2009-08-31T23:47:36Z

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming that defendant-city's police performed racially discriminatory searches, district court's denial of class certification is affirmed where plaintiff had little interest in or knowledge and understanding of the case, and appeared to be merely lending his name to the suit. Dismissal of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment and equal protection claims is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's subjective beliefs were irrelevant in assessing whether a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate his encounter with the police; and 2) the city did not classify plaintiff on the basis of his race.

Read Monroe v. City of Charlottesville, No. 08-1334

Appellate Information

Argued: May 12, 2009

Decided: August 31, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Beam

Counsel

For Appellant:

Neal Lawrence Walters, Scott Kroner, PLC, Charlottesville, VA

For Appellees:

Alvaro A. Inigo, Zunka, Milnor, Carter & Ingo, Ltd., Charlottesville, VA

Shipbuilders Council of Am. v. US Coast Guard, No. 08-1546

2009-08-21T22:43:18Z

In a challenge to the Coast Guard's regulatory scheme governing the issuance of coastwide endorsements to vessels, an order enjoining the regulations is reversed where the Coast Guard's interpretation of its regulatory scheme gave all parts of the scheme functional significance.

Read Shipbuilders Council of Am. v. US Coast Guard, No. 08-1546

Appellate Information

Argued: May 15, 2009

Decided: August 21, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Duncan

Counsel

For Appellants:

Monika L. Moore, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA

Michael Joseph, Blank & Rome, LLP, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

William D. Dolan, III, Venable, LLP, Vienna, VA

Townes v. Jarvis, No. 05-7382

2009-08-20T00:04:45Z

In a habeas petition claiming that a parole ineligibility determination violated petitioner's due process and equal protection rights, denial of the petition is affirmed where petitioner did not identify any clearly established federal law that prohibited the parole board from considering conduct unnecessary to a conviction as part of its three-strikes determination.

Read Townes v. Jarvis, No. 05-7382

Appellate Information

Argued: December 3, 2008

Decided: August 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Motz

Dissent by Judge Shedd

Counsel

For Appellant:

Justin Sanjeeve Antonipillai, Arnold & Porter, L.L.P., Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA

Pueschel v. Peters, No. 08-1351

2009-08-20T00:02:36Z

In an action alleging interference with plaintiff's application for workers' compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff waived her Title VII claim by appealing her claim before the Merit Systems Protection Board to the Federal Circuit; and 2) plaintiff could not be subjected to a hostile work environment where all of the alleged conduct occurred after she left the workplace.

Read Pueschel v. Peters, No. 08-1351

Appellate Information

Argued: May 14, 2009

Decided: August 18, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Gregory

Counsel

For Appellant:

George Michael Chuzi, Kalijarvi, Chuzi & Newman, PC, Washington, DC

For Appellee:

Lauren Anne Wetzler, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA