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.

2:09-cv-01160

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the defendants’ Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 [Docket 11].  The motion is GRANTED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
3:09-cv-01167

Memorandum Opinion and Order

This suit, brought on October 23, 2009, and as amended November 9, 2009, seeks declaratory judgment and injunctive relief based on alleged violations of: (1) the  effluent limits for selenium in WV/NPDES Permit 1022911, and (2) the performance standards and terms and conditions of surface mining permit S-5008-06.  Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc., and Sierra Club’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Summary Judgment, Declaratory Relief, and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 7) and Defendant Hobet Mining LLC’s (“Hobet”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18).

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
3:10-cr-00034

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 38).  For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES the motion.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
3:09-cr-00194

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20).  For the reasons explained below, the motion is DENIED.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
6:06-cv-01013

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are the defendant's motion for summary judgment [Docket 91], cross-motion for summary judgment [Docket 100 (by way of response)], and motion to exceed page limit [Docket 90]. Also pending are the plaintiff's motions for summary judgment [Dockets 92, 94, and 97]. For the following reasons, the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment [Docket 100] and motion to exceed page limit [Docket 90] are GRANTED. The defendant's motion for summary judgment [Docket 91] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The plaintiff's motions [Dockets 94, 97] are DENIED. The plaintiff's motion as to Boggs IV [Docket 92] is also DENIED as premature, and the claims regarding Boggs IV are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
1:08-cr-00043

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Before the Court are factual objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and legal arguments contained in the Sentencing Memoranda of both parties [Dockets 144 and 147-1] as well as supplemental memoranda filed by both parties.   Also before the Court is the Motion by the United States to Seal Sentencing Memorandum [Docket 147].1

Author:
Thomas E. Johnston
MDL 1968

Pretrial Order #60
(Memorandum Opinion and Order re Motion for Class Certification)

Pending is the motion for class certification filed by class representatives in six different actions within this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) [Dckt. 283].

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:05-cr-00003

Sentencing Memorandum and Statement of Reasons

In 2004, as the result of an extensive international investigation, federal authorities suspected the defendant, Bernard E. Raby, of being a consumer of child pornography.  On December 15, 2004, a search warrant was executed on Mr. Raby’s residence in Foster, West Virginia.  Mr. Raby met the authorities at his front door and agreed to be interviewed.  After waiving his constitutional rights, Mr. Raby admitted to possessing, on various electronic-storage devices, approximately 2000 sexually explicit images of underage boys.1  Some of these images depicted prepubescent boys.  Mr. Raby also admitted to having engaged in sexual activity with juvenile boys on multiple occasions.  The authorities executed the search warrant and seized Mr. Raby’s computer and other related evidence.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
3:08-cv-00979

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court are several motions by the parties for full or partial summary judgment: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against the Loadout Nellis Surface Mine (Doc. 112); Intervenor-Defendant, Loadout, LLC’s, Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 115); Intervenor-Defendant, Fola Coal Company, LLC’s, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 135); Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 139); and IntervenorDefendant, Fola Coal Company, LLC’s, Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 150).  For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Parties’ motions.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
2:09-cr-00102

Memorandum Opinion and Satement of Reasons

The United States charged Telford Cruikshank, Jr. with possessing or knowingly accessing with intent to view child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).  The offense carries a maximum term of ten years’ imprisonment.  Mr. Cruikshank pleaded guilty on May 18, 2009.  The Sentencing Guidelines recommend a sentence of 46 to 57 months in prison, with a term of supervised release between 5 years to life.  As explained below, such a sentence would be unreasonable in this case.  I thus sentence Mr. Cruikshank to 24 months in prison, followed by 15 years of supervised release, in addition to a special assessment of $100.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages