William B. Traxler Jr.

How Judge Traxler rules, drawn from 48 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1998-10-01
Education
Davidson College (B.A., 1970); University of South Carolina School of Law (J.D., 1973)
Signed orders read
48

How Judge Traxler decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Where statutory text establishes an exclusionary rule without an innocent-recipient exception, he declines to create that exception for the government.

“We agree with the majority and conclude that § 2515 does not permit an exception to its exclusionary rule in cases where the government was not involved in illegal interception.”

Under the categorical approach, he applies the governing definition as written rather than reshaping it around the facts or a party's preferred formulation.

“Of course, we must apply the definition as written, not as Walker wishes it were written.”

In administrative review, he expects the agency to confront substantial contrary evidence and the context of the regulated party's conduct before drawing an inference from the record.

“FERC, however, never grappled with this significant quantity of evidence showing that McMahan acted independently when withdrawing and resubmitting its applications.”

Procedural preferences

Before imposing an above-guidelines sentence on its own initiative, he requires advance notice sufficient to let counsel address the contemplated sentencing choice.

“We conclude that the district court did not provide sufficient notice that it was considering an above-Guidelines sentence, and we therefore vacate Fancher’s sentence and remand for re-sentencing.”

He preserves the finality of judgments by limiting Rule 60(b)(4) relief to a complete absence of jurisdiction, not a merely debatable jurisdictional error.

“A court plainly usurps jurisdiction ‘only when there is a `total want of jurisdiction' and no arguable basis on which it could have rested a finding that it had jurisdiction.’”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

American Cyanamid Company v. St. Louis University
· 2003-07-16
Appeal (St. Louis University (plaintiff/contribution claimant-appellant)) Denied

“Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Cyanamid is hereby affirmed.”

Wendt v. Leonard
No. 04-1265 · 2005-12-12
Appeal (Peter M. Wendt (plaintiff-appellant, pro se)) Denied

“Because we conclude that there was such an arguable basis, we affirm.”

Michau v. Charleston County, South Carolina
Nos. 04-7726, 04-7734 · 2006-01-18
Appeal (Emory Alvin Michau, Jr. (plaintiff-appellant, civil detainee)) Denied

“Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Michau's complaints under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court's error in treating Michau as a prisoner within the meaning of the PLRA is harmless. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the decision of the district court.”

Payne ex rel. Estate of Calzada v. Brake
Nos. 04-2348, 04-2356, 04-2357, 04-2424 · 2006-03-01
Appeal (Defendants-Appellants (jail officials); Kelly Payne, Estate representative, Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant) Denied

“Because Payne waived any right she may have had to insist that all defendants join in the removal, and because the district court did not abuse its discretion by making its dismissal without prejudice or by setting aside the entries of default, we affirm.”

Green v. Young
· 2006-07-26
Appeal (George Samuel Green (prisoner-appellant, moving to proceed without prepayment of fees)) Granted

“We therefore grant Green’s motion for leave to proceed without pre-payment of fees.”

Zinkand v. Brown
· 2007-03-01
Appeal (Timothy Zinkand (plaintiff-appellant)) Granted

“Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that the district court made a clear error of law and consequently abused its discretion in denying the motion to alter or amend. For these reasons, we hereby reverse the district court’s decision and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Korangy v. United States Food & Drug Administration
05-2300; 06-1860 · 2007-08-17
Petition for review (Petitioners (Amile A. Korangy, M.D. and Korangy Radiology Associates, P.A.)) Denied

“PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED”

United States v. Blackstock
No. 05-7709 · 2008-01-09
Appeal (appellant (defendant/prisoner)) Granted

“VACATED AND REMANDED”

United States v. Fancher
No. 06-4913 · 2008-01-17
Appeal (appellant (defendant)) Granted

“Accordingly, we hereby vacate Fancher's sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing.”

J.P. ex rel. Peterson v. County School Board
06-2068; 07-1320 · 2008-02-14
Appeal (Defendant-Appellant (County School Board of Hanover County)) Granted

“VACATED AND REMANDED”

Bustos v. White
07-6598 · 2008-03-28
Appeal (William White (Warden) and the South Carolina Attorney General (respondents-appellants; the State)) Granted

“We therefore reverse the district court’s conditional grant of a habeas writ and remand to the district court for entry of judgment in favor of the government.”

United States v. Hairston
No. 05-5178 · 2008-04-03
Appeal (appellant (defendant)) Granted

“VACATED AND REMANDED”

Draft for Judge Traxler with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Traxler, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Traxler's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace