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.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court are: (1) Defendant Charles E. (Eric) Gwinn’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 102]; (2) Defendant David P. Murphy’s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default [Docket 112] and Motion to Dismiss [Docket 118];1 (3) Defendant Charles E. (Charlie) Gwinn’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Docket 119]; and (4) Defendant Thomas M. Binetti’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 121].2
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is defendants’ (the “defendants” or “judges”) motion for summary judgment, filed November 5, 2007.
Memorandum Opinion
Pending before the Court is the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 34]. This matter is before the Court on the United States’ Complaint for Federal Taxes [Docket 1], wherein the United States seeks to recover unpaid taxes from Dr. Francis J. Whelan by foreclosing on a parcel of real property in Wyoming County, West Virginia. The action originally named as defendants Dr. Whelan, his three sons, Joseph, David, and Benjamin Whelan, and Ronnie and Wilma Barker, who allegedly had an interest in the real property at issue. Since then, Dr. Whelan has passed away and his son Benjamin, the personal representative of his estate, has been substituted as a party defendant.1 Further, the Barkers have relinquished their interest in the property and been dismissed from the case. (Docket 32 at 1.) Discovery has closed, and the parties agreed to resolve the case on summary judgment. (Docket 29 ¶¶ 7-10.) For the reasons set forth below, the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 34] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before this Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24) and a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Hobet Mining, LLC for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 38). A hearing was held on these motions, January 7, 2007. For the reasons explained below, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24) is DENIED; the Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (Doc 38) is DENIED without prejudice.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court are the above defendants’ motions to exclude audiotape evidence. [Nos. 430, 435, 438, 440, 444, 445, 446, 447, 451, 458, and 516 and the oral motion to join in with these motions made by counsel for Robert Henderson]. The defendants move to exclude all audiotapes obtained by the Government pursuant to wiretap warrants which were issued in the investigation of this case. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motions and EXCLUDES the use of the audiotape evidence in this case.
Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order1
On October 9, 2007, the Court held a hearing in this matter to address Defendant’s objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). After hearing argument on Defendant’s two objections, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental memoranda addressing the objections. Both parties have submitted supplemental memoranda [Dockets 28 and 29]. This opinion addresses Defendant’s first objection: whether, under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, Defendant abused a position of private trust in connection with her offense. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s first objection is SUSTAINED.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
On October 4, 2007, Petitioner filed an “Answer to Respondent’s Memorandum of Law and Motion for Summary Judgment,” with accompanying exhibits. These documents have not been docketed because both Petitioner’s brief and the exhibits in support thereof contain information which should be redacted in accordance with the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the EGovernment Act of 2002. In particular, the court is concerned that the names of the minor victims involved in Petitioner’s prosecution for sexual assault and sexual abuse (even though they are now no longer minors) should be redacted because these files are now accessible to the general public in an electronic format on the court’s electronic docketing system. After reviewing other documents filed in this matter, the undersigned has determined that some of the exhibits filed in support of Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment also contain the minor victims’ full names.
Memorandum Opinion
Pending before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Objections and Compel Discovery (docket # 38), filed on October 22, 2007. By Order entered October 24, 2007 (# 40), the court accelerated the briefing on the Motion. Plaintiff has responded (# 41), and Defendant has replied (# 42). A hearing was conducted on November 2, 2007, and on that same date, the court entered an Order (# 44), granting Defendant’s Motion, directing that Plaintiff serve complete discovery responses in compliance with the applicable Rules and indicating that the instant Memorandum Opinion would be entered at a later date.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by defendant Rachel E. Auxier (docket #50) and defendants David W. Gordon and Kristopher Gordon (docket # 55). The parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge (docket # 18), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), and the motions are now ripe for decision. For the reasons set forth below, the first motion is GRANTED and the latter is DENIED.
Order
Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s letter form Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal [Docket 25]. For the following reasons the motion is DENIED.