<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Judge Paul V. Niemeyer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-paul-v-niemeyer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 21:11:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>CWA Permit Upheld for Mine Company&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/21/cwa-permit-upheld-for-mine-company/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/21/cwa-permit-upheld-for-mine-company/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 15:18:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Paul V. Niemeyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74461</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 4th Circuit affirms issuance of a water quality permit under the Clean Water Act to Highland Mining Company, on the basis that a proposed surface coal mine adjacent to a stream in Logan County would not damage water quality or violate water quality standards. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection issued a permit [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/21/cwa-permit-upheld-for-mine-company/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. appeals panel ponders: what is a pirate?</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/us-appeals-panel-ponders-what-is-a-pirate/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/us-appeals-panel-ponders-what-is-a-pirate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 18:49:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Associated Press</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Diana Gribbon Motz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry F. Floyd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Paul V. Niemeyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74420</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[(AP) — In the violent world of piracy, Mohammad Saaili Shibin was a multilingual negotiator based in lawless Somalia, working his cellphone to negotiate multimillion-dollar ransoms for merchant ships and sailors that dared to venture into pirate-infested international waters off Africa. Does that make him guilty of piracy? The question was the central argument May [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/us-appeals-panel-ponders-what-is-a-pirate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Jurisdiction from Internet Pharmacy Sales&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/07/no-jurisdiction-from-internet-pharmacy-sales/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/07/no-jurisdiction-from-internet-pharmacy-sales/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 14:57:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Paul V. Niemeyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74192</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defendant foreign banks cannot be sued in a Virginia federal district court for an alleged global cyber-crime conspiracy to collect funds from the sale of illegal counterfeit prescription drugs over the Internet to American consumers; the 4th Circuit affirms dismissal of this suit for injunctive relief for lack of personal jurisdiction over the foreign banks. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/07/no-jurisdiction-from-internet-pharmacy-sales/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State Gets Hearing Before Federal Fund Cut-Off&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/state-gets-hearing-before-federal-fund-cut-off/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/state-gets-hearing-before-federal-fund-cut-off/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 16:40:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Paul V. Niemeyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 4th Circuit has jurisdiction to hear a state’s challenge to a the federal Department of Education’s refusal to waive the entire amount of money the state owed for failing to match federal special education funds with state funding; the State of South Carolina is entitled to notice and a hearing before the federal agency [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/state-gets-hearing-before-federal-fund-cut-off/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Won’t Review Security Clearance Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/court-wont-review-security-clearance-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/court-wont-review-security-clearance-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 16:35:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Paul V. Niemeyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74122</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An employee of a federal intelligence agency who alleges he lost his top-secret security clearance and his job after he married a Muslim woman cannot sue the agency for violation of his constitutional rights, reinstatement and back pay; the 4th Circuit says plaintiff was merely restating “speculative and conclusory” allegations of constitutional violations which the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/court-wont-review-security-clearance-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Can’t Review Beach Protection Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/court-cant-review-beach-protection-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/court-cant-review-beach-protection-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Paul V. Niemeyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73897</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A district court did not err in dismissing a North Carolina coastal town’s suit seeking to enforce the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ alleged commitments to protect adjacent beaches during a project to widen portions of the Cape Fear River navigation channel, and the 4th Circuit affirms dismissal of the suit. The Village of Bald [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/court-cant-review-beach-protection-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>One Signature OK to Remove Case to Federal Court&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/one-signature-ok-to-remove-case-to-federal-court/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/one-signature-ok-to-remove-case-to-federal-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:36:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Paul V. Niemeyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73893</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defendant school board’s removal to federal court of a complaint by temporary employees alleging the board and union violated a labor contract by hiring temps for permanent jobs, need not be remanded to state court; the 4th Circuit says a defendant does not need signatures by all lawyers for defendants, but may remove the case [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/one-signature-ok-to-remove-case-to-federal-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Amendment of Dismissed Complaint&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/no-amendment-of-dismissed-complaint/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/no-amendment-of-dismissed-complaint/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:23:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Paul V. Niemeyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73286</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A church that filed a lawsuit challenging a city’s denial of a special use permit to allow it to expand its child-care program could not amend its complaint because the complaint already had been dismissed by the district court; the 4th Circuit says there simply was no complaint pending to amend. The church wanted to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/no-amendment-of-dismissed-complaint/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Conspiracy Charge Sticks for False Distress Call&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/conspiracy-charge-sticks-for-false-distress-call/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/conspiracy-charge-sticks-for-false-distress-call/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:38:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Paul V. Niemeyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73163</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although defendant claims he could not be convicted of federal conspiracy to make a false distress call to the Coast Guard because his girlfriend was not aware a call to the Coast Guard would be part of the plan to fake his death in order to avoid a state probation violation hearing, evidence showed she [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/conspiracy-charge-sticks-for-false-distress-call/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Agency Pesticide Opinion ‘Arbitrary,’ Court Says&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/26/agency-pesticide-opinion-arbitrary-court-says/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/26/agency-pesticide-opinion-arbitrary-court-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:21:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Paul V. Niemeyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72856</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A “biological opinion” issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service to the Environmental Protection Agency is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, and the 4th Circuit reverses summary judgment for the Fisheries Service and vacates its opinion concluding certain pesticides would jeopardize the viability of Pacific salmonids and their [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/26/agency-pesticide-opinion-arbitrary-court-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
