You are here

Opinions

The Southern District of West Virginia offers a database of opinions starting in the year 2001, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search to the right or sort using the drop-downs below.

United States of America v. Marcellus Jabbar Thompson 07/14/2004
2:03-cr-00187

Order

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 2004 WL 1402697 (U.S. June 24, 2004), has given rise to inconsistent sentencing practices in federal courts.  The Circuit Courts that have addressed the issue are split as to whether Blakely applies to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. U.S. v. Harris, 03-5256 (6th Cir. July 14, 2004); U.S. v. Pineiro, No. 03-30437 (5th Cir. July 12, 2004); U.S. v. Booker, No-CR-026-S-01 (7th Cir. July 9, 2004).  The Second Circuit has certified the question to the United States Supreme Court.  U.S. v. Penaranda, No. 03-1055(L) & U.S. v. Rojas, No. 03-1062(L) (2d Cir. July 12, 2004).  Further, those courts finding that Blakely does apply to the Guidelines have taken different approaches to sentencing postBlakely.  See, e.g., U.S. v. Croxford, 2:02-cr-00302PGC (D. Utah June 29, 2004); U.S. v. Shamblin, 2004 WL 1468561 (S.D. W. Va. June 20, 2004).  This court, and several other district courts, have concluded that the Guidelines remain the law in sentencing matters to the extent that they can be applied in a manner consistent with Blakely .  See, e.g., U.S. v. Shamblin, 2004 WL 1468561; U.S. v. Toro, 3:02-cr-362 (D. Conn. July 8, 2004); U.S. v. Montgomery, 2:03-cr-801 (D. Utah July 8, 2001). Some district courts, however, have found that Blakely renders the Guideline scheme unconstitutional in its entirety.  See, e.g., U.S. v. Medas, 2004 Dist. LEXIS 12135 (July 1, 2004); U.S. v. Croxford, 2:02-cr-00302PGC.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. William Bulen and Robert B. Flowers 07/08/2004
3:03-cv-02281

Memorandum Opinion and Injunctive Order

Pending before the court are the plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and/or Summary Judgment on All of Their Claims [Docket 43], the Intervening Mining Associations’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket 21] and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 91], and the United States’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Docket 30] and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 95].  For the reasons stated below, the court FINDS that this case is ripe for adjudication, that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge Nationwide Permit 21, and that all necessary parties are joined in this lawsuit.  The court further FINDS that Nationwide Permit 21 does not comply with the plain language, structure, and legislative history of the Clean Water Act. Section 404(e) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Corps to issue nationwide permits only for those activities determined before issuance to have minimal environmental impact. Nationwide Permit 21 requires a case-by-case, post hoc determination of minimal environmental impact which runs afoul of that section.  Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion [Docket 43] is hereby GRANTED, the Intervening Mining Associations’ motions [Docket 21, 91] are DENIED, and the United States’ motions [Docket 30, 95] are DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Ronald Shamblin 06/30/2004
2:03-cr-00217

Memorandum Opinion and Order

A criminal defense attorney seeking to test the limits of the United States Supreme Court’s days-old decision in Blakely v. Washington, 2004 WL 1402697 (June 24, 2004), could not have conjured a more fitting defendant than Ronald Shamblin.  Shamblin, who had previously pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Manufacture Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, was sentenced to 240 months in prison on June 21, 2004.  The calculation of Shamblin’s sentence included so much offense conduct, so much relevant conduct, and so many enhancements that Shamblin’s sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines was, literally, off the chart.  The guidelines indicated that Shamblin should receive a sentence of life imprisonment. Because no amount of methamphetamine was charged in his indictment, however, Shamblin’s sentence was limited, by the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation of  Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), to the maximum sentence under the relevant statute.1  Now, on the last day that I may review his sentence for clear error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), Shamblin has benefitted again from the Supreme Court’s Apprendi decision, as further explained in Blakely.  Yesterday, the defendant filed a Motion to Correct Unlawful Sentencing Within Seven Days [Docket 69].  For the reasons stated below, I have GRANTED the pending motion [Docket 69], and RESENTENCED Shamblin in accordance with Apprendi and Blakely.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. A.M. 06/23/2004
2:04-mj-00073

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Information and the government’s Motion to Transfer Proceedings Against Juvenile to Adult Status.  Because the court lacks jurisdiction over this case, the Motion to Dismiss the Information is GRANTED and the Motion to Transfer Proceedings Against Juvenile to Adult Status is DENIED AS MOOT.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Robert W. Leslie and Laura D. Leslie v. W.H. Transportation Co., Inc., et al. 06/16/2004
3:03-cv-02142

Order

There are several related motions before the Court.  Plaintiffs’ motion (doc. no. 33) to reconsider the December 11, 2003 Order is GRANTED, and the Order (doc. no. 31) is retracted with respect to the Court’s interpretation of the Exhaustion Clause.  The Court has considered the issues anew with the benefit of motions for partial summary judgment and supporting memoranda.  After considering the motions and responses, as well as oral argument presented to the Court on January 28, 2004, the Court DENIES the motion by Defendant State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company (State Auto) (doc. no. 51), and GRANTS partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, Robert and Laura Leslie (doc. no. 54).  The Court therefore finds in Plaintiffs’ favor on the counterclaim.  Finally, State Auto’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. no. 39) is DENIED.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Cross Country Bank and Applied Card Systems, Inc. v. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. 06/15/2004
2:04-cv-00306

Order

Pending is Defendant Attorney General Darrel V. McGraw’s motion to remand.  For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is GRANTED.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
United States of America v. Ira A. Morris, M.D. 06/04/2004
2:03-cr-00275

Order

On April 29, 2004, the government filed the Second Superceding Indictment against the defendant, Dr. Morris [Docket 68]. Pending before the court is the defendant's motion to dismiss Count Four and Five of this indictment [Docket 84]. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) provides that, "[t]he indictment...must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged...." Further, the Fourth Circuit has held that to be sufficient, "an indictment must contain the elements of the offense charged, fairly inform the defendant of the charges, and enable the defendant to plead double jeopardy as a defense in a future prosecution for the same offense." United States v. Loayza, 107 F.3d 257, 260 (4th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Lewis R. Law 05/28/2004
5:91-cr-00225

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Currently pending before the Court is the Petition of Lewis R. Law for Pardon, Expungement, Set Aside or for Restoration of Civil Rights. In response, the United States filed Response of the United States to Petition of Lewis R. Law for Pardon, Expungement, Set Aside or for Restoration of Civil Rights. In reply thereto, Lewis R. Law filed Reply of Petitioner, Lewis R. Law to the Response of the United States. Having reviewed the aforementioned Petition, as well as all relevant case and statutory law, the Court is now prepared to issue its decision.

Author:
Elizabeth V. Hallanan
United States of America v. 0.13 Acre, More or Less, Situate in Kanawha County, State of West Virginia, et al. 05/25/2004
2:99-cv-01060

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is defendant Douglas Q. Gale’s motion for summary judgment [Docket 47].  The court GRANTS Gale’s motion for summary judgment insofar as Gale seeks compensation for the value of the tax lien on the date of condemnation plus any interest accrued on the value of the tax lien since that date and DENIES the motion insofar as it seeks any additional compensation.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Sylvia Claudette Vass v. Volvo Trucks North America, Inc., et al. 04/28/2004
1:03-cv-02286

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

Before the court is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), brought by defendants Volvo Trucks North America and Volvo Logistics North America (collectively “Volvo”) (Doc. No. 10). Volvo previously moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service (Doc. No. 6) and to transfer venue to the Western District of Virginia (Doc. No. 8). Judge Haden denied these prior motions on January 16, 2004, and transferred this action to this court on the same date (Doc. No. 23). Volvo’s motion was filed on November 26, 2003; the plaintiff filed a response on December 15, 2003 (Doc. No. 14), and Volvo filed its reply on December 23, 2003 (Doc. No. 18). Accordingly, this matter is ripe for adjudication.

Author:
David A. Faber

Pages