Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207520/US-ex-rel-Melan-Davis-v-U-S-Training-Center-Inc-4th-Cir-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 09:06:59+00:00

Document:
opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Bredar joined.
that gave rise to the Relators complaint.
Greystone Limited, The Prince Group LLC, and Xe Services LLC.
of summary judgment with respect to the Katrina contract.
Protective Services contract), to proceed to a jury trial.
one of USTCs trial witnesses allegedly committed perjury.
district courts denial of their motion for a new trial.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgments.
support of DHS Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts.
related work in support of the ongoing security operation.
basis, referred to as the boots on the ground billing rule.
specified by individual Task Orders issued under this contract.
represent from harm or embarrassment.
on the ground each day.
Relators both were formerly employed by USTC.
hired by USTC in April 2005.
before he was hired by USTC and sent to Iraq.
and submission of false invoices.
when she raised these concerns to her supervisors.
a health-related leave of absence.
guards otherwise disqualified 6 from carrying firearms.
The Complaint referred to the Lautenberg Act, 18 U.S.C.
daily rate paid for employees.
categories of evidence offered by Relators.
relating to the Protective Services contract.
all Defendants except USTC on these claims.
Esposito purportedly gave the accounting firms report.
did not provide him the report.
failed to prove that Esposito perjured herself.
denied the Relators Rule 59 motion.
claims relating to the Protective Services contract.
basis of Espositos allegedly perjured testimony.
each of these issues in turn.
Commn, 612 F.3d 752, 755 (4th Cir. 2010).
See Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir.
false or fraudulent claim. 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(B).
Contracting Co., 612 F.3d 724, 729 (4th Cir. 2010).
carry out the obligations identified by Relators.
settled principles of contract interpretation.
Ins. Litig., 524 F.3d 458, 470 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v.
Bankers Ins. Co., 245 F.3d 315, 321 (4th Cir. 2001).
federal common law in interpreting government contracts.
Sav. Bank, FSB v. United States, 503 F.3d 1234, 1245 (Fed. Cir.
Techs., Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1153, 1159 (Fed. Cir.
unambiguous meaning of [the] written agreement controls.
Mach. Works, Inc. v. United States, 926 F.2d 1110, 1113 (Fed.
persons disqualified from using them by the Lautenberg Act.
monitoring the distribution of weapons.
Lautenberg Act did not receive weapons.
We agree with the district courts conclusion.
discretion in making rulings on the admissibility of evidence.
See United States v. Hedgepeth, 418 F.3d 411, 41819 (4th Cir.
United States v. Medford, 661 F.3d 746, 751 (4th Cir. 2011).
v. Henry, 673 F.3d 285, 291 (4th Cir. 2012).
(4th Cir. 2006) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)).
exemption for party admissions, see Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D).
to generate accurate travel documentation retroactively.
district court erred in reaching those conclusions.
to the government at issue in this case.
submitted to the State Department.
the State Department to be reimbursed for such bribes.
other than character, (2) necessary, and (3) reliable.
United States v. Rawle, 845 F.2d 1244, 1247 (4th Cir. 1988)).
still may be excluded under Rule 403.
claims alleging bribes to foreign officials.
F.3d at 334; Jimenez, 269 F.3d at 453.
of this evidence could lead to a side litigation.
court prohibited Mr. Cotton from offering any expert opinions.
of expert testimony, rather than as lay testimony.
requirements contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2).
subject to Fed. R. Evid. 702).
Deficiencies; 2) Questioned Costs; and 3) Compliance Issues.
Protective Service contracts current cost model.
designate these matters as expert opinion evidence.
was not directly at issue in this case.
invocation of his constitutional rights.
subject to exclusion under Rule 403.
questions concerning the allegedly falsified ATF form.
concerning fraud indicators was beyond Willis expertise.
expert may label certain findings fraud indicators.
evidentiary rulings challenged in this appeal.
indicators is misleading and unavailing.
we respect that determination absent an abuse of discretion.
Inc., 99 F.3d 587, 594 (4th Cir. 1996)).
Esposito replied, Yes, I did.
Esposito, [W]ho did you provide it to?
to Relators Rule 59 motion.
Cotton & Company representatives a copy of [the report].
of intent to defraud would have been undermined.
exact date on which she provided the report.
recollection of the events was different than Farrells.
See United States v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 312, 327 (D.C.
denial of the Rule 59 motion.
Farrell as a witness to the jury.
reasons for concluding that a new trial was not warranted.
denying Relators Rule 59 motion for a new trial.
hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
Hamilton, 559 F.2d 1370, 137374 (5th Cir. 1977).
rather than ordering a post-trial evidentiary hearing.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v.