The case involves petitioner James Novia Farrior's 2011 motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 2005 guilty plea and sentence for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The motion challenged whether his prior North Carolina convictions qualified as predicate offenses punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, based on the Fourth Circuit's en banc decision in United States v. Simmons applying the Supreme Court's Carachuri-Rosendo ruling to require an individualized assessment of the maximum sentence the specific offender could have received. The court found the motion timely because the new rule is substantive and retroactive, addressed procedural default by examining actual innocence, and determined that the government's cited prior convictions (two Class G drug offenses) did not qualify as predicates because they occurred after the June 2003 firearm possession date. The court therefore ordered the government to show cause within five days why the judgment should not be vacated and the petitioner released.
This case involves claims by former H-2B visa workers, including plaintiff Gaxiola, against a North Carolina seafood processing company for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA). The workers alleged they were not paid the required minimum wage due to a piece-rate pay system and unauthorized deductions from their wages for transportation, visa, and border crossing expenses. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment and a motion for class certification under Rule 23 for the NCWHA claims. It granted class certification for the NCWHA claims, found defendants liable on the FLSA and NCWHA claims related to minimum wage and improper deductions based on the terms of the labor certifications and applicable regulations, and scheduled a trial on damages while directing the parties to prepare class notices.
This case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Abner Ray Nicholson, who was convicted in North Carolina state court of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for fatally shooting his wife and a police chief responding to a domestic dispute. Nicholson sought to vacate his convictions and death sentences, primarily challenging aspects of his trial and raising claims related to mental retardation and other constitutional issues. The district court reviewed the state court record, conducted an evidentiary hearing on one claim, evaluated expert testimony on adaptive skills and mental capacity, and addressed the petitioner's arguments on the merits.
In Nieto v. Flatau, a retired Marine and civilian employee at Camp Lejeune sued base officials after they enforced a traffic regulation prohibiting extremist or indecent vehicle decals, ordering him to remove decals expressing his views on Islam, terrorism, and the 2000 USS Cole bombing that killed his son, or face exclusion from the base. The plaintiff claimed violations of his First Amendment free speech rights and equal protection. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and permanently enjoined viewpoint-discriminatory enforcement of the regulation. It reasoned that while military commanders have broad authority to restrict expressive activity on base to maintain order and mission readiness, they may not apply such restrictions in a manner that discriminates against particular viewpoints, as evidenced here by the selective prohibition of the plaintiff's decals while permitting other potentially controversial messages.
The case involved a plaintiff who sued the Town of Columbia, Tyrrell County, and the county sheriff after being assaulted by a group while walking in a high-crime area of town, claiming the defendants violated his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to protect him from private violence, along with related state-law claims for negligence and nuisance. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the federal claim and dismissed the state claims without prejudice. It reasoned that the Due Process Clause does not impose an affirmative duty on the state to protect citizens from harm by private actors, as established in DeShaney v. Winnebago County, and found no evidence that the defendants created or enhanced the danger to the plaintiff. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim.
This product liability case arose after plaintiff Gary Stoddard developed tardive dyskinesia allegedly from taking generic metoclopramide, the bioequivalent of the brand-name drug Reglan, for several years. Plaintiffs sued the brand-name manufacturers Wyeth and Schwarz as well as the generic maker PLIVA. The court dismissed the strict-liability counts because North Carolina does not recognize strict liability in product-liability actions. It also granted summary judgment to Wyeth and Schwarz on the remaining claims, holding that a brand-name manufacturer cannot be liable for injuries caused by another company’s generic product that the plaintiff never ingested. The ruling follows the reasoning that brand-name firms have no control over generics and that generic makers copy the brand labeling without creating liability for the originator.