In affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment, the court held that the de facto indemnification state-law claims are preempted under federal law and the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the proposed amendment would be unduly prejudicial to defendant. 

Related Resource:

• Full text of Archstone Multifamily Series I Trust v. Niles Bolton Assoc

In affirming the district court’s decision, the court held that as reflected in the record, the district court did not err in finding that both prongs of the “economic reality” test have been satisfied, where there was an intent to recognize the value of all the stock at issue as taxable income in 2000 and the parties bargained at arms-length for and received, real economic benefit from treating all the stock at issue as received for income tax purposes in 2000. 

Related Resource:

• Full text of  US v. Bergbauer

Defendants’ convictions and sentences are affirmed as: 1) the court rejects defendant’s claim that his conviction under the VICAR statute was for the same conduct as that he was punished for under RICO, and thus constituted double jeopardy; 2) a RICO conspiracy to commit crimes including murder, kidnapping, and robbery is by its nature a crime of violence for purposes of defendant’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. section 924(c) for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; 3) defendant’s evidentiary challenges are rejected; 4) other defendant’s claim that the district court unduly limited his ability to cross-examine the two teenage victims of a gang rape is rejected; 5) the district court’s did not err in deciding not to instruct the jury on the definition of reasonable doubt; and 6) the district court’s admission of the testimony of three expert witnesses did not violate the Confrontation Clause, as each was subject to cross-examination about his judgment.   

In Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cox, No. 09-1240, the circuit court addressed a petition for review of a decision affirming an ALJ’s award of benefits and attorney’s fees under the Black Lung Benefits Act. The court found that the award of benefits was legally proper and supported by substantial evidence; but it reversed in part as the ALJ erred in granting an award of attorney’s fees without first determining a prevailing hourly rate for the attorney’s work. 

Related Resources:

• Full Text of US v. Ayala
• Full Text of Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cox

Defendants’ convictions and sentences are affirmed as: 1) the court rejects defendant’s claim that his conviction under the VICAR statute was for the same conduct as that he was punished for under RICO, and thus constituted double jeopardy; 2) a RICO conspiracy to commit crimes including murder, kidnapping, and robbery is by its nature a crime of violence for purposes of defendant’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. section 924(c) for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; 3) defendant’s evidentiary challenges are rejected; 4) other defendant’s claim that the district court unduly limited his ability to cross-examine the two teenage victims of a gang rape is rejected; 5) the district court’s did not err in deciding not to instruct the jury on the definition of reasonable doubt; and 6) the district court’s admission of the testimony of three expert witnesses did not violate the Confrontation Clause, as each was subject to cross-examination about his judgment.   

In Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cox, No. 09-1240, the circuit court addressed a petition for review of a decision affirming an ALJ’s award of benefits and attorney’s fees under the Black Lung Benefits Act. The court found that the award of benefits was legally proper and supported by substantial evidence; but it reversed in part as the ALJ erred in granting an award of attorney’s fees without first determining a prevailing hourly rate for the attorney’s work. 

Related Resources:

• Full Text of US v. Ayala
• Full Text of Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cox

In Cervantes v. Holder, No. 09-1519, the court faced a challenge to the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s denial of an application for temporary protected status by two brothers from Honduras, whose parents had already been residing in the U.S.

As stated in the decision: “On January 5, 1999 – while the petitioners were yet in Honduras – the Attorney General designated that country for the TPS program due to the devastation caused by Hurricane Mitch.  The TPS is authorized by section 244 of the INA, which allows eligible nationals of a foreign state to temporarily remain in the United States during the pendency of that state’s designation for the TPS program.”

In affirming the holding, the court concluded that the BIA did not err in determining that the petitioners did not satisfy the two requirements for TPS eligibility as they did not demonstrate continuous physical presence nor that they continuously resided in the U.S. since December 30, 1998. 

In US v. McNeil, No. 09-4083, the court faced a challenge to the district court’s imposition of a sentence upon a defendant convicted of firearm possession and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine as an armed career criminal.

In affirming the district court’s sentence under the ACCA, the court concluded that defendant’s prior felony convictions qualified as predicate offenses for purposes of the ACCA, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in the upward departure as the sentence was reasonable. 

Related Resources:

• Full text of Cervantes v. Holder
• Full text of US v. McNeil

As stated in the decision: “The record reflects that travelers had trouble buying newspapers from the shops.  There were instances of unavailability during the early morning, and the shops would sell out of The Herald-Sun.  Furthermore, the Authority concedes that newspapers were unavailable once the shops closed each day around 9:00 p.m….The Publishers’ ability to reach these people inside the terminals was thus nonexistent.”

Thus, in affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the court held that the government interests asserted to justify the total ban do not counterbalance its significant restriction on protected expression.

Related Resource:

• Full text of News & Observer Publ’g. Co. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth

As stated in the decision: “ECMC’s claim to post-petition interest and collection costs is not a matter “under Title 11″ nor is it a civil proceeding “arising in” or “related to” Kirkland’s bankruptcy petition.”  Also stated in the decision: “A claim to post-petition interest and collection costs is also not a matter “arising in” or “related to” a bankruptcy proceeding.”

Thus, in reversing the district court’s decision, the court held that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in the matter.

Related Resource:

• In Re: Kirkland,

In US v. Caro, No. 07-5, the court faced a challenge to a conviction for first-degree murder of and a sentence of death for killing of an inmate.  The defendant made several challenges to his conviction, including district court’s voir dire, denial of his Brady motions, refusal to give defendant’s proposed mercy instruction, and various admissibility decisions.  However, the court rejected all of defendant’s claims and affirmed his conviction and sentence and concluded that, although the court recognized some possible errors, none of these were widespread or prejudicial enough to have fatally infected the trial or sentencing.

Lastly, in Mirisawo v. Holder, No. 08-1704, the court dealt with a petition for review BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s removal order to remove petitioner from United States to Zimbabwe.  The petitioner claimed that the BIA erred in finding that she failed to show that she suffered economic deprivation to amount to past persecution.  But the court held that the BIA’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence that the destruction of her house in Zimbabwe by the government was not an economic persecution, as she has never lived in that house, nor was it likely she ever will live in the partially remaining house.  The court also affirmed the BIA’s conclusion that petitioner’s fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable. 

Related Resources:

• Full text of US v. Llamas
• Full text of US v. Caro
• Full text of Mirisawo v. Holder

The plaintiffs’ main contention was that the particular answer at issue in the reference guide prohibited the plaintiff, a North Carolina licensee, from selling guns at a Virginia gun show to a Virginia licensee for transfer to Virginia residents.  The court concluded that the reference guide is simply informational and that its publication is neither agency action nor final agency action, that is necessary for review under the APA.  Therefore, it affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Related Resource:

• Full text of Golden & Zimmerman, LLC v. Domenech

As stated in the decision: “When the government is unaware of potential FCA claims the public interest favoring the use of qui tam suits to supplement federal enforcement weighs against enforcing prefiling releases.  But when the government is aware of the claims, prior to suit having been filed, public policies supporting the private settlement of suits heavily favor enforcement of a prefiling release.”

Thus, the court held that the district court erred in its decision not to enforce the Release, signed by the plaintiff, as a bar to plaintiff’s claims because the allegations of fraud were sufficiently disclosed to the government prior to the plaintiff’s filing of the qui tam suit.  The court nonetheless affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s suit with prejudice in concluding that the result was correct.

Related Resource:

• Full text of US v. Purdue Pharma L.P