District Court, W.D. Virginia — appointed by Gerald Ford
Kersey v. Astrue
District Court, W.D. Virginia · 2009-03-24 · cited 18×
In this case, Diane Kersey challenged the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging disability from conditions including degenerative disc disease, shoulder issues, and mental impairments such as depression and anxiety. The ALJ had determined that Kersey could perform light unskilled work and her past jobs as a deli clerk and cashier, leading to a finding of no disability. The court reviewed the record and found that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate medical evidence of Kersey's mental impairments, including new evidence of affective and anxiety disorders, and did not adequately assess limitations from her shoulder condition on reaching and upper extremity use. The court also noted that vocational expert testimony was needed to determine the impact of these impairments on her past relevant work. Accordingly, the court vacated the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for further consideration of the impairments and additional expert input.
federal powerhealthcareprocedure
Sierra Club v. Kempthorne
District Court, W.D. Virginia · 2008-12-12 · cited 2×
This case involved environmental groups suing the Secretary of the Interior to compel a cessation order stopping logging, vegetation removal, and road work by coal companies on land covered by a pending surface coal mining permit application under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The plaintiffs alleged these preparatory activities violated federal law and sought both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief after debris from the operations entered adjacent private property. After a magistrate judge's report, the district court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction but accepted the recommendation on the merits, entering judgment for the defendants, vacating the earlier preliminary injunction, and denying a permanent injunction. The core reasoning was that the challenged activities did not qualify as regulated "surface coal mining operations" under SMCRA and its implementing regulations at the time they occurred.
environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power
Wooten v. Lightburn
District Court, W.D. Virginia · 2008-09-30 · cited 15×
This case involved a dispute between a Texas buyer and a Virginia seller over the purchase of real property in Washington County, Virginia, where the buyer alleged that the seller conveyed fewer acres than specified in the agreement. After granting summary judgment on the breach of contract and warranty claims, the court proceeded to trial on the remaining equitable claims of specific performance and quasi-contract, using an advisory jury to resolve factual disputes. The court adopted the advisory jury's findings, ruling for the buyer on the quasi-contract claim because the evidence showed the buyer conferred a benefit by paying the full price, the seller knew of the acreage deficiency and retained the overpayment under inequitable circumstances, and the buyer reasonably expected reimbursement. Damages were awarded in the amount of $390,244.75 plus interest, calculated to account for the acreage shortage based on the per-acre purchase price.
property
Stevens v. Union Security Insurance
District Court, W.D. Virginia · 2008-06-03
This case involved Tonya Stevens challenging Union Security Insurance Company's denial of accidental death and dismemberment benefits under an ERISA-governed group policy after her husband died in a single-vehicle car accident. The insurer denied the claim based on policy exclusions for accidents occurring while the decedent was intoxicated or violating traffic laws, citing evidence of a blood alcohol level of 0.227, speeding, and failure to maintain control. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to the defendant after reviewing the administrative record, finding no genuine issues of material fact and that the denial was supported by the policy terms and evidence. The district court adopted the report in full, denied the plaintiff's motion, granted the defendant's motion, and affirmed the benefits denial, noting the absence of any objections or probative contrary evidence.
labor & employmentfederal power
United States v. Johnson
District Court, W.D. Virginia · 2008-06-03 · cited 1×
The case involved Jeffrey Blake Johnson, who was convicted in 1995 of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and related distribution counts, resulting in a 360-month sentence. Following the Sentencing Commission's retroactive Amendment 706, which lowered offense levels for crack cocaine by two levels, Johnson moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction. The court granted the motion in part after reviewing the amended guideline range of 292-365 months, the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), policy statements, Johnson's criminal history, and his role in the offense, reducing the sentence to 324 months. The court denied requests for counsel and a resentencing hearing, explaining that such motions are not full resentencings and do not carry those procedural rights.
criminal law
United States v. Gilliam
District Court, W.D. Virginia · 2007-09-26 · cited 1×
This case involves defendant Roy Lee Gilliam's 2007 motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his prison sentence for convictions on multiple counts of money laundering, drug trafficking conspiracies, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine. The court granted the motion and resentenced Gilliam to 295 months' imprisonment, finding that the term would have been imposed if Sentencing Guideline Amendment 516 (altering the marijuana plant conversion ratio) had applied at the original sentencing. The decision rested on the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, which authorizes reductions when a guideline range is lowered by listed amendments, after weighing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors such as offense seriousness, deterrence, and avoiding unwarranted disparities. The court denied the requests for appointed counsel and a resentencing hearing, citing precedent that such proceedings do not require those procedures. The original convictions arose from evidence of large-scale marijuana cultivation and distribution operations spanning nearly a decade.
criminal lawprocedure