Tenth Circuit: United States v. Willis

FRE, Due Process, Miranda

No error in introduction of prior bad acts where the conduct was similar and spoke to the specific question in the present case.

Where tribal law required juvenile records to be expunged, and, contrary to that law, the records are later transmitted to another jurisdiction for use in a criminal case, there is no Due Process violation in the second forum.

Where deft invokes right to counsel, subsequent administrative questioning for 30 minutes does not preclude a subsequent immediate waiver of the right.

As deft could attack credibility of victim under the same theory in other ways, no error in exclusion of victim's history.

Where objection for vouching is unspecific, and deft elicits avouching of vouching on cross, review is for plain error.

Where only one harmless error is found on review, no cumulative error.

United States v. Willis

Tenth Circuit: M.G. v. Young

S1983

State consent to a petition for relief from judgment is in itself insufficient indication of innocence to qualify as a termination favorable enough to justify a S1983 action for malicious prosecution.

M.G. v. Young

Ninth Circuit: Madeline Cardenas v. Loretta E. Lynch

Immigration, Due Process, Precedent

Narrowest concurrence controls on a plurality.

Where an immigration officer denies a visa, the rights of third party U.S. citizens are not harmed where there are discrete factual predicates found that correspond to a valid statute.  Burden is on the petitioner to establish bad faith. 

Assertion of racial prejudice and mistaken tattoo identification insufficient showing for bad faith.

 Madeline Cardenas v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit: Idaho Conservation League v. BPA

Kozinski, Environment, Administrative Law

Agency dam management decision to revert to flexible winter water level does not require an environmental review under the statute, as the temporary shift to fixed-level didn't require one.


Idaho Conservation League v. BPA

Fifth Circuit: Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant

Statutory Construction, Double Jeopardy

Where the statute proscribes transportation of somebody in order to do something, it suffices that the intent be an efficient and compelling reason for the transportation, not necessarily the exclusive intent.

Where the statute proscribes crossing a state line, international travel suffices, as there is a state boundary interposed.

Where one statute proscribes crossing a state line in order to do something, and another proscribes transporting someone internationally or across a state line in order to do the same thing, no double jeopardy.

Where PSR uncontrovertedly describes conduct without providing specifics, it is a fair basis for a sentencing enhancement.


Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant

Fifth Circuit: Michael Norris v. Lorie Davis, Director

AEDPA, Habeas

Circuit precedent at the time of conviction clearly established the need for a general mitigation instruction where there was evidence of good character.

Fleeting reference to federal claim in state Habeas petition did not exhaust the claim.

A series of smaller federal claims can't be accumulated into a viable, freestanding one.

Sufficient evidence.

No Strickland error where deft's lawyer elicits fact of prior convictions, doesn't preserve objection to admission of deft's statement to police.

Michael Norris v. Lorie Davis, Director

Fourth Circuit; US v. Martin Barcenas-Yanez

Statutory construction

Mens rea element of state crime is not divisible, as jury need not agree on anything beyond the terms of the law.  Modified categorical approach in caselaw of sister circuit does not compel the use of modified categorical approach in the present forum. 

Circuit split flagged on the specific holding (Texas assault statute.)

US v. Martin Barcenas-Yanez

Fourth Circuit: In Re: Terrence Wright

Habeas, AEDPA

As the state prisoner Habeas statute is more specific than the general federal Habeas statute, petitions relating to the incarceration that do not challenge the underlying conviction arise under the state prisoner Habeas statute.  Circuit split flagged.

Where the claim was available to the petitioner at the time of an earlier petition, pre-AEDPA abuse-of-writ principles justify denial of the writ.

In Re: Terrence Wright

Fourth Circuit: Gerard Morrison v. County of Fairfax, VA

Employment, Administrative


The "blue collar" provision of the exceptions to the exceptions to the FLSA overtime statute does not imply a "blue collar" requirement to subsequent categories, such as emergency responders.

Auer deference to agency determination that the test for the "emergency responder" is one of the employee's primary duty.

Fire captains primarily fight fires.  Exempt from exemption, and therefore covered.

Gerard Morrison v. County of Fairfax, VA

First Circuit: Frangos v. Bank of America, N.A.

FRCP

Where a state court issues an injunction against a foreclosure without notice and the matter is subsequently removed to federal court, the case presents no genuine issue of material fact where the present foreclosure action has ceased and nominal damages have been waived.  


Frangos v. Bank of America, N.A.

First Circuit: Sig Sauer, Inc. v. Brandon

Administrative law

Where the statute bans a device with only one intended use, an agency ruling that bans a device theoretically capable of multiple uses is not arbitrary and capricious where the manufacturer's intent can be reasonably determined.

Sig Sauer, Inc. v. Brandon

First Circuit: Lima v. Lynch

Immigration

Given jurisdiction-stripping provision o relevant law, court has no jurisdiction to review denial of withholding of removal where the agency relied on police reports ancillary to a subsequently vacated conviction.  The challenge is a factual one, not a legal or constitutional one.

 Lima v. Lynch

First Circuit: US v. Carrasquillo-Penaloza

Plea Deals


As Commerce Clause challenge to the statute does not present a jurisdictional issue, a plea agreement with a specific and written waiver of appeals bars the challenge on direct appeal.


US v. Carrasquillo-Penaloza