Fifth Circuit: USA v. Ezell Brown, Jr.

Common-law rule holding that the place where the lender received he false statement establishes venue is inconsistent with the rule that the location of the crime is to be determined by the nature of the crime and the location of the acts.

Where the indictment alleges fraud in the supporting documents and the theory of the case becomes fraud in the application itself, there is no constructive amendment, since the offense as alleged included fraudulent verification of supporting documents at closing.

There is no requirement to establish that the fraudulent statement affected the lending decision; rather, it need only have a natural tendency to influence such a decision.

Reference in closing to truth-seeking role of the finder of fact did not dilute the required standard of proof.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40740-CR0.pdf

Fourth Circuit: Sierra Club v. National Park Service

As claim arises under 2005 amendment, state statute of limitations isn't borrowed; general four-year federal rule applies.

Agency cannot claim lack of time as a basis for holding that numerical take limits are impractical.

Vague and unenforceable take limits were arbitrary and capricious.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/181082.P.pdf

Third Circuit: USA v. Roy Green

Supreme Court's holding that the residual clause of ACCA was unconstitutionally vague did not announce a new constitutional rule that would justify the appeal of sentences under any compulsory residual sentencing scheme; this is established in part by the subsequent holding of the Court that advisory residual sentencing schemes are not unconstitutionally vague. Circuit split flagged.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172906p.pdf

Second Circuit: United States v. Sampson

As the embezzlement statute requires conversion with intent, summary judgment for the deft based on the statute of limitations was error -- the intent to deprive can arise after the inappropriate withholding.  Discovery under the FRCrimPro does not require the government to make a proffer of when such intent arises.

Claims about the theory of the made during liminal proceedings do not estop the government's right to make other assertions at trial.  Theory of indictment claiming that the statewide state supreme court was a single agency is sufficiently supported by state court rulings and the state constitution.  Where the appointment as referee has no firm ending date, whether the deft was acting in that capacity presents a question for trial.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3ff0cc90-c7b5-4314-86a0-7ea64e6c2c6a/3/doc/15-2869_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3ff0cc90-c7b5-4314-86a0-7ea64e6c2c6a/3/hilite/

Second Circuit: Anderson News, L.L.C. v. American Media, Inc.

Publishers' refusals to deal with middleman distributor were insufficiently close in time to be parallel conduct; statements seeming to indicate a common plan are susceptible of more innocent readings.  As a matter of law, finder of fact could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the economically implausible refusal to deal had been established by the evidence.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3ff0cc90-c7b5-4314-86a0-7ea64e6c2c6a/1/doc/15-2714_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3ff0cc90-c7b5-4314-86a0-7ea64e6c2c6a/1/hilite/

First Circuit: US v. Sirois

There is not sufficient binding precedent to clearly establish that revocation of supervised release because of drug use violates the Eighth Amendment; revocation was therefore not plain error.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1797P-01A.pdf

First Circuit: Del Grosso v. Surface Transportation Board

Sufficient evidence for Board finding that packing process is part of the transportation process.

Board's decision that removal of damaged elements of fungible bulk cargo was a part of the transportation process was not arbitrary or capricious.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1794P-01A.pdf

First Circuit: US v. Acevedo-Hernandez

Sufficient evidence for conspiracy.

In case of alleged judicial bribery, referring to the injustice of the underlying proceeding in opening and closing statements of the bribery trial would not be sufficiently plain error to justify reversal.

Even if evidence was more prejudical than probative, harmless error, given the weight of the evidence.

As co-conspirator would have been subject to a wide variety of challenges on cross-examination, court's granting of 5th amendment privilege as to questions that did not directly jeopardize the co-deft was not a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process.

Any sentencing errors harmless.  No cumulative error.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1763P-01A.pdf