More elsewhere, of course

To wit:

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/171944p.pdf

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40148-CV0.pdf

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Time=today&FromMonth=&FromDay=&FromYear=&ToMonth=&ToDay=&ToYear=&Author=any&AuthorName=&Case=any&CaseY1=&CaseY2=&CaseN1=&CaseN2=&CaseN3=&CaseN4=&Submit=Submit&RssJudgeName=Wood&OpsOnly=yes

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/TodayOpn.pl

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/?pk_id=0000009531

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/opinions/daily

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/todays-published-opinions

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders

Sub-optimal breadth and depth today.  Not good. 

Tomorrow is, inter alia, another day.

-CB

Third Circuit: Frank Long v. SEPTA

Although Congress cannot designate an injury as specific and harmful enough for standing, the cause of action and damages for not providing a credit report established that Congress saw the harm as serious, and it was similar to rights recognized in the common law.  The requirement of FCRA notification, though, is a bare procedural violation with no actual harm, insufficient to establish injury in fact under Article III.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/171889p.pdf

Second Circuit: USA v. Barrett

Since Hobbs Act robbery is rarely used in cases of merely threatened harm, convictions under the act are categorically convictions for a crime of violence.

Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy is a crime of violence, as it necessarily creates a substantial risk of violence.

As statute requires that the number of predicate convictions be determined by the finder of fact in the present trial and conduct-specific aspects of the prior convictions are balanced in this determination, many of the constitutional difficulties with prior convictions under a residual clause can be avoided.  The fact that the predicate convictions weren't determined by the finder of fact in this case was harmless error.


http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/82545afb-53b7-40bc-96c2-b5760539665a/1/doc/14-2641_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/82545afb-53b7-40bc-96c2-b5760539665a/1/hilite/


First Circuit: Aguilar de Guillen v. Sessions

Corrigendum, viz:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2095E-01A.pdf

First Circuit: US v. Irizarry-Rosario

References in closing to potentially aggravating factors do not breach  the plea deal, so long  as the tactic is not an end run around the plea agreement, and the government doesn't express regret or a desire to be free of the terms of the deal.