Conspiracy requiring a third participant is sufficiently well-developed if the others are planning to find an alternative to agreement with the necessary participant
Deft's awareness of illegal nature of the weapons sale activity evinced sufficient specific intent to violate the licensing requirements of the Act.
Eagerness to do the transaction and the delicate and furtive nature of the conversations established sufficient evidence for the finding that deft was predisposed to the crime and therefore not entrapped.
Co-conspirator hearsay properly admitted. Court could properly find an unidentified email address a co-conspirator. Admission of contemporaneous uncharged bad acts proper, as sufficiently entwined.
Sentence reasonable -- deft's US presence made her invaluable; no discriminatory error in court's sentencing finding that deft was faithful to her native country.
No plain error in Brady violation, given insufficient record/proffer.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201615635.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Eleventh Circuit: LABMD, Inc. v. FTC
FTC cease-and-desist order too vague to be enforced, since an identical order from a court would be unenforceable on its terms, and the order therefore does not abate a specific act or practice that violates the statute.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201616270.pdf
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201616270.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: Minott v. Brunello
Refusal of District Court to issue a warrant in rem for arrest of the vessel can be independently appealed.
Operation of the vessel in navigating the waters was sufficient maritime activity to give the court statutory in rem jurisdiction.
The lien against the vessel was perfected by the harm of the tort.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201810374.pdf
Operation of the vessel in navigating the waters was sufficient maritime activity to give the court statutory in rem jurisdiction.
The lien against the vessel was perfected by the harm of the tort.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201810374.pdf
Tenth Circuit: US v. Miller
Admission of expert testimony that did not clearly distinguish civil malpractice from criminal behavior was not an abuse of discretion.
Sufficient evidence where deft expert offers the only clear guidance on threshold of criminality, and court follows indications of another expert.
Indictment alleging dispensing of controlled substances by transaction as opposed to by substance not defective; additionally, would be harmless error as elements of the offense were identical. No error in allowing conviction on theory of multiple dispensation where the crime is single dispensation.
Absent curative instruction, plain error in constructive amendment of indictment when, during testimony at trial, prosecution witness alleged a second false statement.
Given the procedures used, state administrative vacatur did not make a prior suspension of medical license a legal nullity.
Sentence challenge moot, as already served.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-1231.pdf
Sufficient evidence where deft expert offers the only clear guidance on threshold of criminality, and court follows indications of another expert.
Indictment alleging dispensing of controlled substances by transaction as opposed to by substance not defective; additionally, would be harmless error as elements of the offense were identical. No error in allowing conviction on theory of multiple dispensation where the crime is single dispensation.
Absent curative instruction, plain error in constructive amendment of indictment when, during testimony at trial, prosecution witness alleged a second false statement.
Given the procedures used, state administrative vacatur did not make a prior suspension of medical license a legal nullity.
Sentence challenge moot, as already served.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-1231.pdf
Ninth Circuit: US v. Gibran Richardo Figueroa-Beltran
Given a state supreme court holding that a legislature could leave the identification of specific controlled substances for later determination, and a second holding by the same court that the simultaneous sale of two prohibited substances constituted two distinct offenses, question certified to the state court asking whether the elements of the state statute are divisible, which would merit closer scrutiny when asking whether they correspond to the federal statute.
"Pled."
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/06/16-10388.pdf
"Pled."
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/06/16-10388.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Pike v. Hester
State Judicial Court finding granting an order of protection based on conduct that would be excused if lawful has preclusive effect under state's doctrine of issue preclusion in a subsequent S1983 action claiming a 4A violation on the search.
Dissent -- Parties didn't raise the issue, night-time dog-sniff of public employee's desk doesn't violate the 4A.
Ninth Circuit: Danny P. v. Catholic Health Initiatives
Statute requires that Plan Administrator reimburse for room and board at a mental health facility where a similar surgical or medical stay would be so reimbursed.
The court's reading does not conflict with agency interpretations.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/06/16-35609.pdf
The court's reading does not conflict with agency interpretations.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/06/16-35609.pdf
Ninth Circuit: John Doe v. Regents
State writ of administrative mandamus is a substantive state proceeding, not merely a mechanism, and as such, is not subject to the Ex Parte Young exception to state immunity for federal remedies.
State claim that plaintiff had not exhausted judicial remedies by seeking administrative mandamus did not operate as a sufficiently unambiguous waiver of state immunity.
Denial of motion to dismiss is on exhaustion grounds can be appealed as a pendent matter.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/06/17-56110.pdf
State claim that plaintiff had not exhausted judicial remedies by seeking administrative mandamus did not operate as a sufficiently unambiguous waiver of state immunity.
Denial of motion to dismiss is on exhaustion grounds can be appealed as a pendent matter.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/06/17-56110.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Ler Wah Guide
District Court judge's recognition at sentencing of a language barrier did not undercut the court's finding that an earlier waiver of jury trial and guilty plea had been knowing and voluntary, despite the deft's claim that simultaneous translation had made the proceedings impossible to follow. (Also given a written form.)
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172431P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172431P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Daniel Ayala v. CyberPower Systems (USA), Inc.
Compensation agreement voidable only for cause was, as a matter of law, insufficient to overcome the state presumption of employment at will, as it didn't specifically address the point.
Dissent: Matter for the finder of fact.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171852P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Mark Woodworth v. Kenneth Hulshof
A special prosecutor has absolute immunity for incidents of nondisclosure and conspiracy tied to the prosecution; such acts cannot be used to establish a conspiracy prior to the beginning of the prosecution.
Prosecutorial directives made by the judge did not strip him of absolute judicial immunity, as they were not binding on the prosecutor.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171667P.pdf
Prosecutorial directives made by the judge did not strip him of absolute judicial immunity, as they were not binding on the prosecutor.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171667P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: US v. Matthew Helm
Certain downward adjustments to a guideline range, including reduction for time served, are modifications to a certain range; a retroactive modification in that range does not justify a challenge to the sentence where the initial downward reduction resulted in a below-guidelines sentence.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171284P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171284P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: James Humphrey v. Eureka Gardens Public Facility
A S1983 discriminatory treatment claim accrues for purposes of the statute of limitation when the plaintiff is aware of the adverse decision and capable of seeking injunctive or declaratory relief.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171265P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171265P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: William Wheeler v. William Hronopoulos
In a Section 1983 action alleging improper search, a claim at trial that the tip was hearsay does not properly preserve a claim on appeal that the confidential informant might not have existed at all.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-06/C:17-2073:J:Gilbert:aut:T:fnOp:N:2166644:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-06/C:17-2073:J:Gilbert:aut:T:fnOp:N:2166644:S:0
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Charlise Williams
No constitutional error where a court limits cross-examination on a peripheral issue designed to suggest bias and motive to lie, so long as the theory of the attack is made plain.
No clear error in sentencing calculation of loss amounts that didn't take into account the lawfulness of claims asserted in the debt incurred during the fraud.
No error in sentencing calculation of number of victims by totalling the number of creditors stayed by each fraudulent petition.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-06/C:17-2244:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:2166680:S:0
No clear error in sentencing calculation of loss amounts that didn't take into account the lawfulness of claims asserted in the debt incurred during the fraud.
No error in sentencing calculation of number of victims by totalling the number of creditors stayed by each fraudulent petition.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-06/C:17-2244:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:2166680:S:0
Sixth Circuit: In re Blasingame
Trustee's sale of claim to a creditor operated as an assignment of claim under all theories of the claim; this removed the claim from the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy action.
A bankruptcy court's interpretation of its order assigning a claim to a creditor in exchange for value to the trustee is not a contract but an order, and is reviewed for abuse of discretion and not subject to clarification by extrinsic evidence.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18b0009p-06.pdf
A bankruptcy court's interpretation of its order assigning a claim to a creditor in exchange for value to the trustee is not a contract but an order, and is reviewed for abuse of discretion and not subject to clarification by extrinsic evidence.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18b0009p-06.pdf
Fourth Circuit: US v. Daniel Sanchez
When a deft elects not to challenge an almost-completed sentence by Habeas, a challenge to the imposition of additional time after revocation of supervised release cannot be raised on the grounds that the original sentence was unconstitutional, as statute requires such challenges to be made by direct appeal or collateral challenge.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/174169.P.pdf
Fourth Circuit: US v. Eddie Fluker
Under categorical analysis, state robbery statute isn't a crime of violence, as it only required the minimum of force to take the object from the other person.
A postconviction challenge to a sentencing error after the completion of the sentence is not moot where the petitioner is currently incarcerated on a subsequent conviction to be served consecutively to the challenged sentence.
No error in allowing testimony not presented at trial during a full resentencing, so long as the government is not given a second bite at the apple with respect to a certain sentencing decision.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/174690.P.pdf
Second Circuit: Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London v. Insurance Company
In business arbitration, party-appointed arbitrators are not limited by the usual tests of evident partiality; rather, a party seeking to challenge the outcome must establish by clear and convincing evidence an improper nondisclosure or a prejudicial impact on the award.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/406cb98d-3b23-41bf-b154-c6c24ff325e7/1/doc/17-1137-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/406cb98d-3b23-41bf-b154-c6c24ff325e7/1/hilite/
(Incertain members of Lloyds presumably limited to permissive intervention.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)