United States ex rel. Smith v The Boeing Company

Smith appealed summary judgment granted to Boeing and a supplier in his qui tam action. The panel affirmed. It held the district court did not error in admitting two Federal Aviation Administration investigative reports into evidence because the reports were trustworthy given the FAA’s qualification to make determinations on whether parts supplied to Boeing by supplier were conforming or not, the FAA considered Smith’s statements and the investigation was not for the purpose if litigation. It rejected Smith’s arguments for untrustworthiness as partial redaction is not a basis for a finding of untrustworthiness, considering hearsay was appropriate, there was no need for a hearing as FAA considered Smith’s statements, there was no basis to challenge the investigators skill and experience and the attacks on the content of the report had nothing to do with trustworthiness. The panela held the district court did not abdicate its role when it considered the reports as it evaluated each claim in though opinion. The panel held that smith failed to prove scienter because the language in the contract relied upon by Smith can be reasonably read to require computer controlled manufacturing methods or allow manual methods with tighter tolerances and thus there is no basis to conclude any false statements were knowingly made.

Davis v Clifford

Davis appealed summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds to Clifford and other defendants. The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. It held Clifford and one other officer were not entitled to qualified immunity as driving with a suspended license is a minor offense, Davis was not a threat to the officers and her rolling up her windows and locking her car doors did not mean Davis was attempting to flee particularly as her car was boxed in by police vehicles. Thus, at most minimal force was authorized under the circumstances and breaking the driver side window and pulling Davis out by her hair and arms was excessive under the circumstances and this violated clearly established law against excessive force. The panel affirmed summary judgment as to two other officers as Davis did not challenge dispositive findings by the district court on appeal.

United States v Singer

Singer appealed his sentence. The panel affirmed. It held there was no procedural error in applying a reckless endangerment during flight enhancement as the high speed chase that was the basis for the enhancement was separate from the reckless driving that led to the death of eth victim. It held there was no error in applying an enhancement for endangering public safety based on a .18 blood alcohol content, the danger his speeding and other reckless behavior put members of the public at risk and the risks involved in a high speed chase. It finally held the 75 month sentence was substantially reasonable given the impact of witnessing the death on victim’s wife, the fact Singer was on release for DUI at the time of the collision and the Dui arrest was only six months prior to the collision here and the fact that Singer head-butted a deputy twice after his arrest all of which were properly considered under the sentencing statute and none of which were taken into account by the guidelines.