Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A publicly traded reinsurance company experienced significant financial losses over a two-year period due to adverse developments with its largest client, which led to higher-than-expected claim payouts and a dramatic drop in its stock price. Investors, represented by a pension trust and a bank, alleged that the company committed securities fraud by making misleading statements about the adequacy of its reserve funds. Specifically, they claimed the company failed to disclose historical data indicating that its reserves were insufficient, even though it knew of this adverse information.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey initially denied the company’s motion to dismiss, allowing limited discovery focused on whether the company intentionally omitted the historical loss ratio information. The Magistrate Judge restricted discovery to a narrow scope, declining to require production of all underlying data, and the District Court affirmed this limitation. After this limited discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment for the company, holding that the reserve statements were not misleading as a matter of law because the company had considered the historical data and the omitted information did not “totally eclipse” other factors in the reserve calculations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the District Court erred in its application of the materiality standard and in denying further discovery. The Third Circuit found that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the omission of adverse historical data was material to investors, given the company’s dependence on its largest client and the significance of historical trends in its reserve-setting process. The court vacated the summary judgment and remanded for full discovery and further proceedings, clarifying that materiality is a context-specific inquiry and that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to proceed. View "Boilermaker Blacksmith National Pension Trust v. Maiden Holdings Ltd" on Justia Law

Carl Rose was serving a term of supervised release after completing a federal sentence for drug and firearm offenses. During this period, he was alleged to have violated the terms of his supervision by testing positive for marijuana, absconding from supervision, and, most significantly, committing aggravated assault and possessing a firearm. The aggravated assault allegation stemmed from an incident in which a victim reported that Rose entered her bedroom, brandished a firearm, demanded money, and stabbed her multiple times before fleeing. Although state charges for aggravated assault were dismissed when the victim failed to appear in court, Rose pled guilty to prohibited possession of a firearm.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held a supervised release revocation hearing. Rose did not contest the firearm possession violation, so the hearing focused on the aggravated assault allegation. The government presented testimony from law enforcement officers and introduced body camera footage showing the victim identifying Rose as her attacker. The victim did not testify at the hearing, and her out-of-court statements were admitted over Rose’s objection. The District Court found that the government had made diligent efforts to locate the victim, who was herself a fugitive, and concluded that her statements were sufficiently reliable and that there was good cause for her absence. The court revoked Rose’s supervised release and sentenced him to 48 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed whether the District Court erred in admitting the victim’s hearsay statements without live testimony, considering Rose’s confrontation rights. The Third Circuit held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. It found the victim’s statements reliable due to corroborating evidence and determined that the government had shown good cause for her absence. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "United States v. Rose" on Justia Law

Philadelphia police officers stopped a car driven by Raphael Ross for having illegally tinted windows in a high-crime area. During the stop, Ross appeared extremely nervous, displaying shaking hands, a stammering voice, and erratic movements with his jacket inside the car. After Ross produced expired insurance and registration and claimed to have left his license elsewhere, Officer Smart complimented Ross’s Rolex watch and asked where he worked. Ross replied that he owned a home health aide business. Officer Smart then returned to his patrol car to check Ross’s information, discovering a recent firearm arrest. Meanwhile, Officer Foreman observed continued nervous behavior and noncompliance with her instructions. After backup arrived, officers frisked Ross and searched his car, finding a gun and drugs.Ross was charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with firearm and drug offenses. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer’s questions about his watch and employment unlawfully extended the stop under the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by Rodriguez v. United States. The District Court denied the motion, finding the brief exchange to be permissible small talk aimed at calming Ross and not an unconstitutional extension of the stop. Ross pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that brief, safety-related small talk—such as complimenting a watch and asking about employment—does not violate the Fourth Amendment if it is intended to deescalate tension and does not measurably prolong the stop. The court found that the officers’ actions were reasonable given Ross’s nervous behavior and affirmed the District Court’s denial of the suppression motion and Ross’s conviction. View "USA v. Ross" on Justia Law

Michael Rivera, a prisoner, filed a complaint alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by police officers during a traffic stop and subsequent search. Initially, Rivera named the New Castle County Police Department and several unidentified “John Doe” officers as defendants. After the police department identified the officers involved, Rivera amended his complaint to name them specifically.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware screened Rivera’s complaint, dismissed the claim against the police department as frivolous, but allowed the claims against the Doe defendants to proceed. The court ordered the police department to identify the officers, which it did. Rivera then amended his complaint to add the identified officers. The officers moved to dismiss, arguing that the amendment was untimely and did not relate back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), because Rivera allegedly knew their identities when he filed the original complaint. The District Court agreed, finding that Rivera “indisputably knew” the officers’ names and thus the amendment did not relate back, rendering the claims untimely. Rivera’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and he appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. The Third Circuit held that the District Court applied the wrong legal standard by focusing on Rivera’s knowledge rather than on what the officers knew or should have known, as required by Rule 15(c) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A. The Third Circuit also found that the District Court improperly resolved factual disputes against Rivera at the motion to dismiss stage. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Rivera v. New Castle County Police Department" on Justia Law

The case concerns a taxpayer, Stephanie Murrin, who underpaid her federal income taxes from 1993 to 1999. The underpayment resulted from her tax preparer, Duane Howell, making false or fraudulent entries on her tax returns with the intent to evade tax. Murrin herself did not cause these false entries and did not have any intent to evade tax. More than twenty years later, in 2019, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a notice of deficiency to Murrin for the underpaid taxes from those years. Murrin did not dispute the amount of tax owed, the accuracy-related penalty, or the interest, but argued that the IRS was barred from assessing the tax by the three-year statute of limitations.The United States Tax Court reviewed the case after Murrin petitioned for a redetermination of the deficiency. The Tax Court held that the exception to the statute of limitations in Internal Revenue Code § 6501(c)(1) applied because the false or fraudulent returns were prepared with the intent to evade tax, even though that intent was held by the preparer and not by Murrin herself. The Tax Court concluded that the IRS’s notice of deficiency was not barred by the statute of limitations, and Murrin appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the Tax Court’s interpretation of § 6501(c)(1) de novo. The Third Circuit held that the statute does not require the taxpayer herself to have the intent to evade tax; rather, the exception to the statute of limitations applies if anyone—such as a tax preparer—prepares a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax. The court affirmed the judgment of the Tax Court, holding that taxpayer intent is not required for the exception to apply. View "Murrin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

A Mexican national who entered the United States without authorization in 2000 was detained by the Department of Homeland Security in 2023 and charged as removable. Between 2019 and 2021, he was arrested and convicted of multiple offenses, including several DUIs in different states. He conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and later, cancellation of removal. At his hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) declined to hear live testimony from his wife and psychologist, relying instead on their written reports and other documentary evidence. The IJ denied all forms of relief, finding, among other things, that his DUI convictions precluded a finding of good moral character and that he failed to show his removal would cause his wife exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. The BIA found that he had waived his challenges to the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection by failing to raise them in his notice of appeal or briefing, rendering those claims unexhausted. The BIA also agreed with the IJ that his multiple DUI convictions established a lack of good moral character, making him ineligible for cancellation of removal. The BIA rejected his due process claim, concluding he had received a full and fair hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the unexhausted claims for asylum, withholding, and CAT protection. Regarding cancellation of removal, the court found that substantial evidence supported the finding that the petitioner lacked good moral character and that he failed to show prejudice from the exclusion of live witness testimony. The court dismissed the petition in part and denied it in part. View "Sanchez v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

A Guatemalan citizen who had been present in the United States since 2007 conceded removability for entering the country without admission or parole. He applied for cancellation of removal, which requires, among other things, at least ten years of continuous physical presence and a qualifying U.S. citizen relative who would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if he were removed. The Immigration Judge found that he met the good moral character and criminal history requirements but concluded he had not established the necessary continuous presence or that his U.S. citizen son was a qualifying relative, partly due to lack of documentation. The judge also found that, even if the son qualified, the hardship did not exceed what is ordinarily expected from a parent’s removal.The petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s findings regarding the qualifying relative and hardship, dismissing the appeal. After the Immigration Judge’s decision but before the BIA’s decision, the petitioner’s U.S. citizen daughter was born. Following the BIA’s dismissal, he moved to reopen his case, arguing that his daughter’s birth was new evidence supporting his eligibility for relief. The BIA denied the motion, reasoning that the daughter’s birth was not “new” evidence because it occurred while the appeal was pending, and also found insufficient evidence of hardship. A motion for reconsideration was also denied, with the BIA reiterating its interpretation of “former hearing” and again finding no exceptional hardship.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed only the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The court held that “new” evidence for a motion to reopen is evidence unavailable at the last hearing before the Immigration Judge, not before the BIA. However, because the BIA considered the new evidence and found it insufficient, the court found the BIA’s error harmless and denied the petition for review. View "Suchite-Salguero v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

Paul Harmon, who had worked for decades as an accountant and controller at a family-owned electrical engineering firm, embezzled over a million dollars from the company. His actions led to significant financial losses for the business and its employees, including legal and accounting costs, overpaid taxes, and the eventual closure of the company. The president of the company detailed these hardships in a victim impact statement and letter submitted at Harmon’s sentencing.After Harmon pled guilty to wire fraud in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the court imposed an upwardly varied sentence of 72 months, citing the severe impact of his crimes on the victims and the business. The presentence report and the government did not recommend, and the court did not apply, a sentencing enhancement for causing “substantial financial hardship.” In 2024, Harmon sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on a new, retroactive Sentencing Guideline provision, U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, which excludes defendants who caused substantial financial hardship. The government did not oppose the motion. The District Court denied the reduction, relying on the earlier victim impact materials to find Harmon ineligible, and did not provide him an opportunity to contest those materials at this stage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. It held that due process protections under U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a)—requiring notice and an opportunity to contest new information—apply to sentence reduction motions under § 3582(c)(2). However, the court concluded that the victim impact statement and letter were not “new information” because they had already been relied upon at the original sentencing to find material facts. Therefore, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of Harmon’s motion for a sentence reduction. View "USA v. Harmon" on Justia Law

A Pennsylvania prisoner sentenced to death sought to reopen his federal habeas corpus proceedings to present expert evidence obtained in 1999, which he argued would support his claim that he was incompetent at the time of his guilty plea and sentencing. This evidence was not presented during his initial state postconviction proceedings due to his counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. The prisoner contended that a subsequent Supreme Court decision, Martinez v. Ryan, should allow him to introduce this evidence in federal court, despite statutory restrictions.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied the prisoner’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), finding it untimely and concluding that Martinez did not apply because the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim had already been adjudicated on the merits and was not procedurally defaulted. The District Court also determined that no extraordinary circumstances justified reopening the habeas proceedings and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted a certificate of appealability and reviewed the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, while the prisoner could use Rule 60(b)(6) to challenge the District Court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing, his motion was timely. However, the court concluded that Martinez does not permit reopening the case to introduce new evidence where the underlying claim was already decided on the merits. Furthermore, even if Martinez applied, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) bars the introduction of new evidence unless strict statutory requirements are met, which the prisoner could not satisfy. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the portion of the motion constituting a successive habeas petition. View "Taylor v. Commissioner of Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

A federal inmate diagnosed with diabetes was initially prescribed medication and given certain accommodations while incarcerated. After being transferred to a new facility, his new medical provider discontinued his diabetes medication and accommodations based on a single blood test result, despite the inmate’s objections that the result was not representative of his condition. The inmate’s health deteriorated, leading to severe diabetic ulcers and ultimately the amputation of his toe. He alleged that medical staff repeatedly denied or delayed necessary care, and that his requests for treatment were falsely documented as refusals. The inmate later filed administrative claims with the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and, after those were denied or not fully addressed, brought suit alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs under the Eighth Amendment and also asserted a claim under the Rehabilitation Act.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey screened the complaint and dismissed the Rehabilitation Act claim. The defendants moved to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics. The District Court granted the motion, reasoning that the case presented a new context from prior Supreme Court precedent because the injuries were not fatal and that the existence of the BOP’s administrative remedy program was a special factor counseling against extending Bivens. The inmate appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. The court held that the availability of the BOP’s administrative remedy program constituted a special factor not present in Carlson v. Green, and thus created a new context under the Bivens analysis. Because an alternative remedial structure existed and was available to the inmate, the court declined to extend a Bivens remedy. The court also affirmed dismissal of the Rehabilitation Act claim, as sovereign immunity barred damages claims against the federal government under that statute. View "Muniz v. United States" on Justia Law