Eight Circuit: Alvin Jackson v. Dexter Payne

 When assessing petitioner's mental capability, lack of detail on childhood tests is insufficient to establish that the childhood tests should not be relied upo, with the appropriate fixed margin of error.

Where the low end of the IQ scores is within the defined range, consideration of the second factor is the test is compulsory; a borderline test number can't be offset by other factors.

Court did not clearly err in considering childhood data, as petitioner has been incarcerated for most of his adult life.  Adaptive strengths, particularly within the controlled environent of prison, are not necessarily relevant to the consideration of adaptive deficits.

Supreme Court precedeent prohibits capital punishment where the intellectual disability exists at time of execution.

DISSENT

Adaptive strengths developed in prison are relevant to the inquiry.  Data insufficient to carry the petitioner's burden of proving disability; court shifted burden sub silentio.  State statute also has a presumption against petitioner, requiring him to prove unconstitutionality.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/201830P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Austin DeCoster

Cruel & Unusual, Due Process, Sentencing

Corporate liability is not vicarious liability, since there is direct control of the instrumentalities of the crime.  Custodial sentence therefore does not offend Due Process.

No clear error in findings of fact relating to sentencing,

Past offenses of the corporate entity appropriately considered during sentencing, given defts' control of the company.

Concur - Defts' negligence in running the business allows custodial sentence.

Dissent - No, it doesn't.

United States  v.  Austin DeCoster

Seventh Circuit: Marcos Gray v. Marcus Hardy

Prisons

Although individual claims of infestation are insufficient to present a genuine issue of fact, the claim must be assessed holistically.

Harms of infestation present an issue for the finder of fact.  (1984 quote.)

Knowledge of conditions can be imputed to incoming warden (caption not changed).


Marcos Gray v.   Marcus Hardy

Eleventh Circuit: Brandon Jones v. Commissioner, GA DOC, et al. (2)

S1983, Due Process
Due process claim against state secrecy statute doesn't state a claim under S1983.

Eighth amendment claim not appealed, insufficient, as no better method has been established.

Insufficient injury for standing resulting from state secrecy statute.

Lateness of appeal argues against equities of stay.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201610277.ord.pdf

[CB editorial: The death penalty is morally unjustifiable.]

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Trevon Sykes

ACCA predicates

As the PSR was sufficient to establish the burglary convictions as "generic burglary," the convictions are ACCA predicates.

Crime committed as a juvenile considered as ACCA predicates do not implicate 8A.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143139P.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Benard McKinley v. Kim Butler

Habeas, retroactivity  (Posner)

Although Federal Habeas is unavailable for 8A claim as it was not raised on state direct appeal, there is sufficient cause & prejudice for a successive state Habeas.  A post-sentencing Supreme Court holding establishing a categorical bar to mandatory life sentences for juveniles also established a non-categorical right for juvenile status to be considered in mitigation when imposing a life sentence.

Dissent: The ethic behind the non-categorical right was present in earlier decisions as well.  Problematic rule.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-04/C:14-1944:J:Ripple:dis:T:fnOp:N:1681279:S:0

Tenth Circuit: Henderson v. Glanz

S1983 - prisons.

Appellate court cannot re-evaluate sufficiency of evidence on interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity - where the court's finding is not contradicted in the record, it is presumed to be adequate.

Undisputed facts in the record that blatantly contradict the factual findings of the court on qualified immunity can be reviewed on interlocutory appeal.

As prison employee had no knowledge of the unlocked door before leaving to attend to another emergency, no denial of clearly established right.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-5077.pdf

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Mark Hebert

Sentencing, 5A, 6A, 8A.

92 year sentence for Bank Fraud under 70K upheld, due to murder established by preponderance in sentencing.

No clear error in the finding.

After plea deal, gov't filed second PSR, cross-referencing the murder.

Cross-reference to state law murder not substantively unreasonable, as the sentence could have been an independent upward variance in the primary offense.

No Fifth Amendment Due Process, Eighth Amendment, or Sixth Amendment violation, as sentence was within statutory limits of the primary offense.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-31405-CR0.pdf