FindLaw Opinion Summaries - DC Circuit

Carr v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 08-7083

2009-11-20T23:05:39Z

In an action alleging that the police unlawfully arrested plaintiffs during a protest, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where the city did not have probable cause to believe that the protesters knew the protest at issue lacked a permit. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the city only needed to show that the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that everyone arrested was part of the rioting group; and 2) the city could lawfully complete the mass arrest without first ordering the crowd to disperse and giving plaintiffs an opportunity to comply.

Read Carr v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 08-7083

Appellate Information

Argued September 16, 2009

Decided November 20, 2009

Judges

For Appellant:

Stacy Anderson, Peter J. Nickles, Todd S. Kim, Donna M. Murasky, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Daniel M. Schember, Susan B. Dunham, Arthur B. Spitzer and Fritz Mulhauser, Washington, DC

Mitchell v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 05-5420

2009-11-20T23:01:10Z

In a prisoner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, the application is denied where, although plaintiff had only two "strikes" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and thus the PLRA did not automatically bar him from proceeding IFP, the court denied the application as a discretionary matter because of plaintiff's pattern of abusive litigation in the past and his failure to qualify for IFP status under the imminent danger exception.

Read Mitchell v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 05-5420

Appellate Information

Argued October 5, 2009

Decided November 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Tatel

Counsel

For Appellant:

Sara Kaiser, Steven H. Goldblatt, Cecily Baskir and Charlotte Garden, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC

For Appellee:

Harry B. Roback, R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Washington, DC

Tooley v. Napolitano, No. 07-5080

2009-11-17T21:35:47Z

In an action claiming that the government unlawfully wiretapped plaintiff's phone and placed him on a terrorism watch list, dismissal of the action is affirmed where plaintiff's claims were patently insubstantial and implausible.

Read Tooley v. Napolitano, No. 07-5080

Appellate Information

Argued October 8, 2009

Decided November 17, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Williams

Counsel

For Appellant:

Lori Alvino McGill, Richard P. Bress and Gabriel K. Bell, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Teal Luthy Miller and Douglas N. Letter, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

Sanford v. US, No. 08-5402

2009-11-16T19:36:28Z

In a petition for habeas review of a military court martial, dismissal of the petition is affirmed where: 1) there was no due process right to a court-martial panel of a minimum size; and 2) petitioner did not present evidence that a panel of less than six persons was likely to result in a miscarriage of justice.

Read Sanford v. US, No. 08-5402

Appellate Information

Argued September 18, 2009

Decided November 13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Rogers

Counsel

For Appellant:

Eugene R. Fidell and Matthew S. Freedus, Washington, DC

For Appellee:

Doris Coles-Huff, R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Washington, DC

Williams v. Martinez, No. 08-5221

2009-11-16T19:32:03Z

In a murder prosecution, dismissal of petitioner's habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction is reversed where, because the state court of appeals held that challenges to the effectiveness of appellate counsel could not be brought pursuant to the state collateral review statute, but were instead required to be raised through a motion to recall the mandate in that court, that statute did not deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Read Williams v. Martinez, No. 08-5221

Appellate Information

Decided November 13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Tatel

Concurrence by Judge Brown

Counsel

For Appellant:

William Hoffman and David L. Cousineau, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Michael T. Ambrosino and Roy W. McLeese, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Washington, DC

Kersey v. Wash. Metro. Area Trans. Auth., No. 08-7040

2009-11-11T18:45:06Z

In a disability discrimination action alleging that defendant transit authority's refusal to promote plaintiff was the consequence of discrimination and retaliation, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant came forward with a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reason for refusing to promote plaintiff to positions that required driving: to wit, the provision of a prior settlement agreement stating that "under no circumstance will plaintiff be permitted to operate an authority vehicle."

Read Kersey v. Wash. Metro. Area Trans. Auth., No. 08-7040

Appellate Information

Argued September 15, 2009

Decided November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Garland

Counsel

For Appellant:

Eric L. Siegel and Neil L. Henrichsen, Washington, DC

For Appellee:

Bruce P. Heppen, Carol B. O'Keeffe, Mark F. Sullivan, Deputy General Counsel, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, DC

US v. Reeves, No. 07-3130

2009-11-11T18:41:03Z

Defendant's drug possession sentence is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in imposing an obstruction of justice enhancement because defendant failed to appear at his arraignment hearing; and 2) the district court did not plainly err in concluding that defendant's acceptance of responsibility, which did not occur until after he was re-arrested for another crime, was insufficiently timely to warrant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

Read US v. Reeves, No. 07-3130

Appellate Information

Argued September 18, 2009

Decided November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Brown

Counsel

For Appellant:

Joseph R. Conte, Washington, DC

For Appellee:

April E. Fearnley, Roy W. McLeese, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Washington, DC

Camden County Council on Econ. Dev. v. US Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 08-5396

2009-11-07T00:12:21Z

In an action challenging the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) decision to terminate plaintiff-school district's Head Start funds as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the plain terms of HHS regulations required plaintiff, after it received an initial notice, to ensure that it did not have "undesirable and hazardous materials and conditions" at any of its playgrounds, and plaintiff failed to comply with that obligation.

Read Camden County Council on Econ. Dev. v. US Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 08-5396

Appellate Information

Argued September 16, 2009

Decided November 6, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Kavanaugh

Counsel

For Appellant:

Robert A. Graham and Edward T. Waters

For Appellees:

Robin Meriweather and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, DC

T Street Dev., LLC v. Dereje & Dereje, No. 08-7123

2009-11-03T16:23:16Z

In an appeal from the denial of plaintiff's action to enforce a settlement agreement it claimed the parties reached during the pendency of its suit for specific performance of a real estate transaction, the district court's order is affirmed where the parties had failed to reach agreement on a material element of the case.

Read T Street Dev., LLC v. Dereje & Dereje, No. 08-7123

Appellate Information

Argued October 9, 2009

Decided November 3, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Tatel

Counsel

For Appellants:

Thomas F. Murphy and Robert E. Greenberg, Friedlander Misler, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Emil Hirsch and Steven A. Pozefsky, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Washington DC

US v. Lafayette, No. 08-3024

2009-11-03T16:17:29Z

Defendant's drug and firearm sentence is affirmed where: 1) 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) permitted courts to consider only the consequences of Sentencing Guidelines changes and did not reopen other elements of a sentence; and 2) the district court acted within its discretion in denying a sentence reduction based on a Guidelines amendment.

Read US v. Lafayette, No. 08-3024

Appellate Information

Argued October 8, 2009

Decided November 3, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Tatel

Counsel

For Appellant:

A. D. Martin, Washington, DC

For Appellee:

Peter S. Smith, Roy W. McLeese III, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Washington, DC

In the Matter of: Greater Southeast Cmty. Hosp. Found., Inc., No. 08-7089

2009-10-27T22:17:36Z

In an appeal from a district court order striking plaintiff's attorney as counsel of record and terminating his status as an appellant from a bankruptcy court order, the order is affirmed where: 1) counsel was not a licensed attorney; and 2) he lacked prudential standing to appeal from the bankruptcy court's order.

Read In the Matter of: Greater Southeast Cmty. Hosp. Found., Inc., No. 08-7089

Appellate Information

Argued September 18, 2009

Decided October 27, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Henderson

Counsel

For Appellants:

Dennis Lane and Janet M. Nesse, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Patrick J. Potter, Stephen E. Leach and D. Marc Sarata, Leach Travell Britt PC, McLean, VA

Skinner v. US Dep't of Justice, No. 05-5284

2009-10-27T22:01:43Z

In a Privacy Act action against the Bureau of Prisons concerning the loss of plaintiff-prisoner's good-time credits, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) inmate records were exempt from the relevant provisions of the Privacy Act; and 2) plaintiff's damages claim was not cognizable unless plaintiff first secured relief through a writ of habeas corpus.

Read Skinner v. US Dep't of Justice, No. 05-5284

Appellate Information

Argued September 14, 2009

Decided October 27, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Garland

Counsel

For Appellant:

Yvonne M. Williams and Anthony F. Shelley, Washington, DC

Frank A. Skinner, pro se

For Appellees:

W. Mark Nebeker and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Washington, DC

FTC v. Tarriff, No. 08-5205

2009-10-23T21:54:04Z

In an appeal from an order of the district court granting a petition to enforce subpoenas issued to pharmaceutical company officers in the course of an ongoing Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into agreements among companies suspected of unlawfully delaying entry of lower-cost generic versions of a drug, the order is affirmed where the FTC was permitted to record depositions by videotape in addition to stenographically.

Read FTC v. Tarriff, No. 08-5205

Appellate Information

Argued October 8, 2009

Decided October 23, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Sentelle

Counsel

For Appellants:

Eric Grannon, J. Mark Gidley, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case LLP, Washington, DC

For Appellee:

Lawrence DeMille-Wagman, Willard K. Tom, John F. Daly, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC

US v. Jones, No. 07-3025

2009-10-23T21:39:49Z

Defendant's firearm possession conviction is affirmed where defendant's voluntary statement that he was publicly drinking in violation of local law tipped the balance from providing a mere hunch to articulable suspicion of possible ongoing criminal wrongdoing, giving an officer reasonable suspicion to search him.

Read US v. Jones, No. 07-3025

Appellate Information

Argued September 14, 2009

Decided October 23, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Rogers

Counsel

For Appellant:

Dennis M. Hart, Washington, DC

For Appellee:

Leslie A. Gerardo, Roy W. McLeese III and Chrisellen R. Kolb, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Washington, DC

CSX Transp., Inc. v. STB, No. 07-1369

2009-10-23T21:35:36Z

In petitions for review of a Surface Transportation Board regulation that provided two simplified methods for resolving rail rate disputes too small to bring under ordinary procedures, the petitions are granted where, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Board's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking failed to give notice of a significant change that surfaced only in the final rule. (Superseding opinion)

Read CSX Transp., Inc. v. STB, No. 07-1369

Appellate Information

Argued April 7, 2009

Decided October 23, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Tatel