Given the recent holding of the US Supreme Court defining the age of consent for the general offense of statutory rape, the state statute is not a valid sentencing predicate, as the state statute is stricter, and a strict liability offense.
Government's post-briefing argument that the crime is a crime of violence under the instant provision of the sentencing guidelines refers to an earlier version of the guidelines with materially different language -- the older version cites crimes with a "substantial risk" of violence.
Contention that the sentence would be justified under another part of the guidelines is not properly before the court, as the question is simply whether the current sentence was correctly imposed.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-51009-CR0.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.
Fifth Circuit: Edward Busby v. Lorie Davis, Director
Assertion of actual innocence in a second state Habeas that was dismissed summarily with an indication that the court did not reach the merits was not dismissed for procedural default, as the briefing indicates (which would at any rate be a reasonable ruling, since Federal courts are permitted to do such things), but for the alternate reason in the statute, namely that no reasonable juror would have accepted the claim. As this alternate ground is not challenged, the state denial was not an unreasonable application of facts or federal law.
Second non-AEDPA federal Habeas asserting identical claims is denied on merits.
Ineffective Assistance claim based on direct appeal was not raised in initial state Habeas -- ineffective assistance in collateral proceedings is insufficient excuse for the default of claim, as there is no right to counsel at that stage.
No prejudice from ineffective assistance at trial.
Editorial note: End the death penalty.
First Circuit: US v. Gonzalez-Negron
Souter, by designation.
No plain error in court's acceptance of plea for possession of a weapon in furtherance of a drug crime where the gun and the drugs were found in separate areas of the residence, given modificaitons to gun and gov't proffer to prove role in drug scheme.
No plain error in colloquy's omission of clarification of "in furtherance," as it is a plain term, and there was no showing that deft would have changed the plea.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1302P-01A.pdf
No plain error in court's acceptance of plea for possession of a weapon in furtherance of a drug crime where the gun and the drugs were found in separate areas of the residence, given modificaitons to gun and gov't proffer to prove role in drug scheme.
No plain error in colloquy's omission of clarification of "in furtherance," as it is a plain term, and there was no showing that deft would have changed the plea.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1302P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Benitez-Beltran
Territory's crime of Attempted Murder is a valid predicate offense, since (1) Territory's definition of murder requires purposeful or knowing conduct, and the generic offense merely requires reckless indifference; and (2) the act or omission required for the attempt could be counted as the substantial step in furtherance, cf. MPC.
Government's mention of impermissible sentencing factors at sentencing was insufficient to establish that the court relied on them in sentencing.
No substantive error in upward variance, as court developed a theory of recidivism; no error in court's using arguments offered in mitigation as factors weighing in favor of a higher sentence, given the concern with recidivism.
No substantive error for a ten-year felon-in-possession sentence to be served consecutively to the existing 90 year sentence for aggravated robbery.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1161P-01A.pdf
Government's mention of impermissible sentencing factors at sentencing was insufficient to establish that the court relied on them in sentencing.
No substantive error in upward variance, as court developed a theory of recidivism; no error in court's using arguments offered in mitigation as factors weighing in favor of a higher sentence, given the concern with recidivism.
No substantive error for a ten-year felon-in-possession sentence to be served consecutively to the existing 90 year sentence for aggravated robbery.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1161P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Serrano-Acevedo
Insufficient articulable grounds for a protective sweep where two armed men robbed a bank, and both had been detained prior to the sweep through the house.
Subsequent consent to search was tainted by the fruits of the sweep.
Court's instruction sufficient to cure in-court statement by police officer saying that the robbers had been identified to him by name by an informant.
Other hearsay harmless.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2009P-01A.pdf
Subsequent consent to search was tainted by the fruits of the sweep.
Court's instruction sufficient to cure in-court statement by police officer saying that the robbers had been identified to him by name by an informant.
Other hearsay harmless.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2009P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Tanco-Pizarro
In a revocation of supervised release proceeding, challenges raised for the first time in a motion to reconsider the sentence are not preserved for appeal.
Absent a showing of potentially exculpatory evidence, no plain error in denial of discovery and continuance in revocation hearing, given indictment handed down in a parallel proceeding,.
No plain error in considering the magnitude of the offense and the need for just punishment in the revocation proceeding, as they speak to the magnitude of the breach of trust in the parole violation.
Prior compliance with parole waived for not being raised below.
No plain error in an upward variance five times the upper limit of the range, as adequately discussed at sentencing.
Substantively, no abuse of discretion in the sentence, as it's not implausible or indefensible.
Tenth Circuit: Perry v. Durborow
Challenges to questions of fact in interlocutory petition for relief seeking qualified immunity do not remove jurisdiction where counsel stipulates to the facts at issue during spoken arguments.
Qualified immunity for supervisory liability of detainee rape, as a general prohibition on deliberate indifference to sexual abuse didn't sufficiently prohibit supervision of a facility where male guards encountered female prisoners outside the view of security cameras.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-5023.pdf
Qualified immunity for supervisory liability of detainee rape, as a general prohibition on deliberate indifference to sexual abuse didn't sufficiently prohibit supervision of a facility where male guards encountered female prisoners outside the view of security cameras.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-5023.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Mary Brazil v. Arkansas Dept of Human Service
In a suit alleging discrimination in employment practices, a material change in the plaintiff's working situation moots a claim of retaliation that seeks injunctive relief where there is only a speculative possibility that the employee might be transferred back to her old position.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172229P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172229P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Leslie Grussing v. Orthopedic and Sports Medicine
No error in trial court's refusal to allow questioning of an expert on a line of inquiry that had been established by another witness.
In a diversity action, federal law governs the review of counsel statements in closing arguments.
Given curative instruction, deft counsel's mis-characterization of the burden of proof was not plainly injurious.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172228P.pdf
In a diversity action, federal law governs the review of counsel statements in closing arguments.
Given curative instruction, deft counsel's mis-characterization of the burden of proof was not plainly injurious.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172228P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Missourians for Fiscal, etc. v. James Klahr
State law prohibiting the formation of political committees after 30 days before an election is subject to strict scrutiny, as the law speaks to formation, a precondition for speech, and not disclosure.
The law is overbroad, as citizens might have cause to speak within the prohibited window, there are subsequent reporting requirements closer to the election, and past practice of the agency in merely imposing a $1,000 fine does not save the act.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171314P.pdf
The law is overbroad, as citizens might have cause to speak within the prohibited window, there are subsequent reporting requirements closer to the election, and past practice of the agency in merely imposing a $1,000 fine does not save the act.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171314P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: In re Sealed Case
Where a court varies downward from a statutory maximum which is beneath the published guidelines range and the sentence is later further reduced on the government's motion, the sentence is not sufficiently based on the published range to merit relief after subsequent changes to that range.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/164456P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/164456P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Todd Dyer
Where deft challenges plea at trial by asserting grounds of innocence, an appellate challenge to the plea on other grounds is reviewed for plain error.
No plain error in magistrate's acceptance of plea where deft made one or two word answers in colloquy and court did not inquire into possible bipolar disorder.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-13/C:17-1776:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:2169817:S:0
No plain error in magistrate's acceptance of plea where deft made one or two word answers in colloquy and court did not inquire into possible bipolar disorder.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-13/C:17-1776:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:2169817:S:0
Sixth Circuit: Acosta v. Cathedral Buffet Inc.
Following reversal and remand, the appellate court should refrain from granting leave to file a motion at the Circuit level for fees under the statute; the District Court is better positioned to judge the matter.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0112p-06.pdf
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0112p-06.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Innova Hospital San Antonio LP v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield
ERISA action need not identify the specific language of every plan provision at issue to state a claim, so long as the pleading is not overly conclusory; the suit might be resolved using representative terms.
Under state law, similar analysis applied to the claim for breach of contract.
As a suit for monetary damages is possible, a suit for breach of fiduciary duty is barred by the statute and precedent.
No error in denial of leave to amend second amended complaint, as the request did not discuss the legal standard for untimely leave to amend.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-11300-CV0.pdf
Under state law, similar analysis applied to the claim for breach of contract.
As a suit for monetary damages is possible, a suit for breach of fiduciary duty is barred by the statute and precedent.
No error in denial of leave to amend second amended complaint, as the request did not discuss the legal standard for untimely leave to amend.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-11300-CV0.pdf
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Richard Evans
No plain error in conviction where the procedures of the medical practice were the subject of testimony and the link to the individual cases in the indictment was merely the patients' medical files.
Finder of fact might reasonably have found the non-narcotics elements of the medical practice to be cookie-cutter and superficial cover for the actual work of the practice.
Even absent a showing as to the amount of "clean money" in a commingled account, no plain error in the aggregation of all withdrawals in computing the total amount of withdrawals to determine if the amount withdrawn must necessarily have included the criminal proceeds.
No plain error in mail fraud conviction where finder of fact might have found an implied promise in the patient communications of a proper standard of care.
Witness' opinion of illicit nature of practice sufficiently based in commonsensical inference.
Arguendo, if Confrontation Clause was violated by not allowing deft to cross after prosecution assertion in direct that witness (who had been notified that she was a target of an investigation) was not a suspect; testimony was cumulative.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20159-CR0.pdf
Finder of fact might reasonably have found the non-narcotics elements of the medical practice to be cookie-cutter and superficial cover for the actual work of the practice.
Even absent a showing as to the amount of "clean money" in a commingled account, no plain error in the aggregation of all withdrawals in computing the total amount of withdrawals to determine if the amount withdrawn must necessarily have included the criminal proceeds.
No plain error in mail fraud conviction where finder of fact might have found an implied promise in the patient communications of a proper standard of care.
Witness' opinion of illicit nature of practice sufficiently based in commonsensical inference.
Arguendo, if Confrontation Clause was violated by not allowing deft to cross after prosecution assertion in direct that witness (who had been notified that she was a target of an investigation) was not a suspect; testimony was cumulative.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20159-CR0.pdf
Third Circuit: Marie Gillispie v. Regionalcare Hospital Partners
Whistleblower who merely objected in internal meetings to non-reporting of facts already known to the decisionmakers does not qualify for the protections of the federal statute.
State common-law employment protections are preempted by the state whistleblower statute.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/164307p.pdf
State common-law employment protections are preempted by the state whistleblower statute.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/164307p.pdf
Second Circuit: Edrei v. Bratton
A 14th Amendment S1983 action alleging excessive force in the use of acoustic weapons states a claim where the force is intentionally applied and the officer is aware of its unreasonable use, given lack of exigency, proportionality of response, and mitigation.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/1/doc/17-2065_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/1/hilite/
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/1/doc/17-2065_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/1/hilite/
Second Circuit: ING Bank N.V. v. M/V TEMARA
A statutory maritime lien arises by operation of law when a vessel contracts for covered supplies and the supplies are delivered pursuant to the contract, regardless of whether the eventual provision occurred through a chain of intermediaries.
The subcontractor is operating pursuant to another's agreement with the party to the contract with the vessel, and therefore the subcontractor cannot assert a lien against the vessel.
Equitable remedies such as unjust enrichment are not a basis for a judgment against the vessel, as the lien is an in rem action.
Error for the District Court to issue a sua sponte summary judgment absent notice to parties where a reasonable possibility existed of a factual dispute.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/2/doc/16-3923_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/2/hilite/
The subcontractor is operating pursuant to another's agreement with the party to the contract with the vessel, and therefore the subcontractor cannot assert a lien against the vessel.
Equitable remedies such as unjust enrichment are not a basis for a judgment against the vessel, as the lien is an in rem action.
Error for the District Court to issue a sua sponte summary judgment absent notice to parties where a reasonable possibility existed of a factual dispute.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/2/doc/16-3923_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/2/hilite/
Second Circuit: U.S. v. Daugerdas
Although, since the interest attached at the time of the offense, the government has a superior claim to the forfeited funds, if the recipient of a gratuitous transfer can allege facts sufficient to infer that the transfer preceded the criminal acts, Due Process and the statute both allow the third party, despite the issues resolved in the criminal action, to claim a superior interest, since commingling of funds would bar the relation-back of the government's interest.
"Pled."
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/3/doc/17-898_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/3/hilite/
"Pled."
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/3/doc/17-898_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/3/hilite/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)