<?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 William B. Traxler Jr.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-william-b-traxler-jr/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 18:38:06 +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>No Restitution Payment with Tax Refund&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/no-restitution-payment-with-tax-refund/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/no-restitution-payment-with-tax-refund/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 14:59:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge William B. Traxler Jr.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74325</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A district court abused its discretion in adding as a special condition to defendant’s sentencing order an obligation to turn over any tax refund as part of her restitution for illegal receipt of social security payments, and the 4th Circuit vacates the order setting the special condition. In the Victim and Witness Protection Act of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/no-restitution-payment-with-tax-refund/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Money Laundering Convictions Under ‘Merger Problem’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/no-money-laundering-convictions-under-merger-problem/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/no-money-laundering-convictions-under-merger-problem/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 13:49:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge William B. Traxler Jr.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74118</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this fraud case involving a scheme to sell life settlement investments, which resulted in nearly $100 million in losses for investors, the 4th Circuit interprets “proceeds” of the scheme as “net profits” and overturns defendant’s money laundering convictions; the court affirms defendant’s remaining fraud convictions, but vacates defendant’s sentence and remands for resentencing. Defendant [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/no-money-laundering-convictions-under-merger-problem/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Trial Ordered in Carjacking Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/new-trial-ordered-in-carjacking-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/new-trial-ordered-in-carjacking-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:52:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge William B. Traxler Jr.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73179</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a carjacking prosecution that turned on identification of defendant as the dreadlocked offender who stole the victim’s car, the government’s error in misrepresenting the date on a photo of a different suspect without dreadlocks, who was seen driving the vehicle three days after the carjacking, means defendant is entitled to a new trial based [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/new-trial-ordered-in-carjacking-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Indictment Change OK in Investment Fraud Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/indictment-change-ok-in-investment-fraud-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/indictment-change-ok-in-investment-fraud-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:24:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge William B. Traxler Jr.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72296</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An amendment of an indictment to narrow conspiracy charges arising from defendant’s fraudulent scheme of taking investors’ money, promising to pay insurance premiums from the escrowed funds and lying to investors about multiple aspects of the business, did not violate defendant coconspirator’s rights, and the 4th Circuit affirms his conspiracy and fraud convictions and his [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/indictment-change-ok-in-investment-fraud-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No FOIA Docs for Contractor Being Sued&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/no-foia-docs-for-contractor-being-sued/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/no-foia-docs-for-contractor-being-sued/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:29:55 +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 William B. Traxler Jr.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71992</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Documents provided to the federal government by a military housing contractor to obtain approval to terminate the contractor’s partnership with another company and sue it for alleged fraud are not discoverable by the defendant company through a FOIA request, and the 4th Circuit upholds the district court decision allowing the government to withhold the confidential [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/no-foia-docs-for-contractor-being-sued/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legal Resident Eligible for Waiver&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/19/legal-resident-eligible-for-waiver/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/19/legal-resident-eligible-for-waiver/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:09:19 +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[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge William B. Traxler Jr.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70883</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although petitioner, a native of El Salvador, was convicted of the aggravated felony of receipt of stolen property after entering the U.S. illegally and later obtaining permanent legal resident status, he nevertheless is eligible for a waiver pursuant to § 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the 4th Circuit grants his petition for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/19/legal-resident-eligible-for-waiver/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Immunity for Somali Torture Defendant&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/07/no-immunity-for-somali-torture-defendant/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/07/no-immunity-for-somali-torture-defendant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:43:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge William B. Traxler Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70599</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After earlier rejecting appellant Mohamed Ali Samantar’s claim to statutory immunity from suit under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the 4th Circuit now holds that Samantar does not have immunity under pre-FSIA common law. On remand to the district court, Samantar sought dismissal of the claims against [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/07/no-immunity-for-somali-torture-defendant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Ordered to Reconsider Civil Commitment&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/12/court-ordered-to-reconsider-civil-commitment/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/12/court-ordered-to-reconsider-civil-commitment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:01:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge William B. Traxler Jr.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69533</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The record does not support a district court’s rejection of civil commitment for a sex offender and the 4th Circuit orders reconsideration; the offender has a long history of acting on his pedophilic urges, has been convicted or adjudicated delinquent five times, has admitted he  offended many more times than he was caught and has [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/12/court-ordered-to-reconsider-civil-commitment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prison Must Justify Beard Policy&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/16/prison-must-justify-beard-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/16/prison-must-justify-beard-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 15:01:36 +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 Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge William B. Traxler Jr.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/16/prison-must-justify-beard-policy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Virginia prison officials failed to show how allowing a Sunni Muslim inmate to wear a one-eighth-inch beard would implicate prison health or security concerns, and the 4th Circuit vacates summary judgment for defendant officials in the inmate’s suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. We find that the prison policy of not [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/16/prison-must-justify-beard-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google Faces Trial on Trademark Claims&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/10/google-faces-trial-on-trademark-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/10/google-faces-trial-on-trademark-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:43:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge William B. Traxler Jr.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/10/google-faces-trial-on-trademark-claims/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In language-learning company Rosetta Stone’s trademark infringement suit against Google over use of the Rosetta Stone mark in Google’s online advertising platform, the 4th Circuit vacates summary judgment for Google on plaintiff’s claims for direct infringement, contributory infringement and dilution of plaintiff’s mark, but upholds summary judgment for Google on claims of vicarious infringement and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/10/google-faces-trial-on-trademark-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
