Second Circuit: United States v. Lobo

Witness assertion, when credited, suffices to establish that drugs made it to US markets.

Aggravating role sentence increase upheld.

"http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1aad3dd4-e94a-4e4b-a3b1-6cd4b00c0df9/1/doc/17-2894_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1aad3dd4-e94a-4e4b-a3b1-6cd4b00c0df9/1/hilite/
.
~ ,

First Circuit: US v. Vallellanes-Rosa

As the court was not compelled to vary downward for the federal carjacking count, the sentence was substantively reasonable; as the relevant factors were mentioned during the sentencing, the sentence was procedurally reasonable.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1541P-01A.pdf
.
~

Other precedential cases from today

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0208p-06.pdf

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-19/C:17-1080:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2220907:S:0

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/19/14-71768.pdf

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/19/12-55911.pdf

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/19/16-73801.pdf

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201713611.pdf

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1101.Opinion.9-19-2018.pdf

-CB
.

Sixth Circuit: Jesse Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions

Door to door utility canvassers are subject to the travelling salesman exception to the statute, since although the utility has the final power to ratify the sale or not , gaining the consent of the customer is the work of the salesman.

Although the portal-to-portal act puts some security screening time outside the Labor act's compensation mechanism, state law might cover the claim, since state law does not mimic the exception, and work need not involve exertion.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0207p-06.pdf
.
~ ,

Second Circuit: Kevin Flood, et al. v. Just Energy Marketing Group, et al.

To qualify for the Travelling Salesman exception to the Act, the  work of the employee must be closing sales.   The fact that the company could ultimately decline to ratify the deal and proceed with the transaction is irrelevant to this consideration, as the salesman's task is to get the customer's consent to the transaction.

Court did not err or abuse discretion in refusing offensive collateral estoppel against the insurer for litigating the opposite view in another form, as the two contract interpretations are not precisely identical, and not all claims have yet been litigated to their conclusion. 

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85b366f3-f243-43e5-81c8-b4640a784328/3/doc/17-546_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85b366f3-f243-43e5-81c8-b4640a784328/3/hilite/                                                                                  
.

Second Circuit: Munoz-Gonzalez, et al. v. D.L.C. Limousine Serv.

From the plain meaning of the statute, black cars are taxis.

 http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85b366f3-f243-43e5-81c8-b4640a784328/2/doc/17-2438_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85b366f3-f243-43e5-81c8-b4640a784328/2/hilite/
.
~

Second Circuit: Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co.

The term "occurrence" in the policy generally signifies an unexpected event; under state law, except for some strict liability events, the test is actual subjective expectation, not that which a reasonable person would expect.

The challenging of claims by the insurer did not violate state trade practice laws. 

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85b366f3-f243-43e5-81c8-b4640a784328/1/doc/16-2999_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85b366f3-f243-43e5-81c8-b4640a784328/1/hilite/


.
~ , ,

Others

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0205p-06.pdf

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0206p-06.pdf

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/18/17-30061.pdf

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/18/16-50439.pdf

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/18/16-17347.pdf

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/18/15-15791.pdf

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-3119.pdf

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201710189.pdf

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201710189.pdf

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201712091.pdf

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/8AE80A6C0FBDFB7B8525830C004D863A/$file/16-1159-1751123.pdf
.

Fifth Circuit: George Alvarez v. City of Brownsville

Insufficient connection between municipality's policies and the withholding of the evidence in this case; placing sole discretion in a single officer does not amount to deliberate indifference, and the officer's conduct was no worse than negligent.

Deft did not have a constitutional right to pre-plea-deal disclosure of exculpatory evidence in the possession of the government.  

Concurrence: Federal District Court had obligation to allow challenges to potentially doctored pieces of evidence.

Concurrence: Brady is a trial right, waiveable at plea stage.

Dissent: Constitutional right.


.
~

Third Circuit: K. D. v. Downingtown Area School District

Student's free and appropriate public education was sufficient, since the student made reasonable progress, and there is no requirement that educational goals for disabled students ensure that they advance normally with their age cohort.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173065p.pdf
.
~

Second Circuit: United States of America v. St. Juste (Paul)

Since the videotape of crime leaves no doubt as to what occurred, error for sentencing court to have held that the deft restrained the victims during the commission  of the crime.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/2/doc/17-2702_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/2/hilite/
.
~

Second Circuit: United States v. Washington

Consent to polygraph testing as a condition of supervised release is onerous and not invariably part of similar sentences; the addition of the requirement in the written sentence after omitting it in the spoken sentence was therefore an impermissible modification. 

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/1/doc/17-2841_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/1/hilite/
.
~

First Circuit: US v. Pineda Mateo

In conspiracy prosecutions, the government cannot compel the testimony of a co-conspirator spouse.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1857P-01A.pdf
.
~ ,

First Circuit: US v. Garcia-Ortiz (Corr.)

On page 17, line 4, the word "concurrent" is replaced with "consecutive." 

 http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1405E-01A.pdf
.

Federal Circuit: Dupont v. Synvina

A party asserting right of statutory appeal from the patent board doesn't have to establish specific threat of infringement litigation; rather, for standing, a party must establish a controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality.  A competitor's concrete plans for present and future activity that presents a risk of infringement suffice to establish standing.

Given range disclosed in prior art, presumption of obviousness insufficiently rebutted.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1977.Opinion.9-17-2018.pdf






.
~ ,

Tenth Circuit: Smith v. Aldridge

State habeas determination that a judge's statement claiming that the jury was zealously watched was more credible than five juror affidavits asserting the jurors slept during the trial was not an unreasonable determination of the facts.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-6149.pdf
.
~ ,

Ninth Circuit: Nunies v. HIE Holdings

Under the discrimination statute, the minor nature of an actual or perceived injury is an affirmative defense, and the burden to establish this subjective belief or actual condition is on the employer.

Plaintiff employee's claim that work was impossible with the injury sufficed to establish that a major life activity was impossible with the injury.

State statute's assertion that it is the sole remedy does not foreclose a claim under federal law.

 http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/17/16-16494.pdf


.
~ ,

Casey Taylor v. Burlington North R.R.

Certified question & bench memo.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/17/16-35205.pdf




.
~

Seventh Circuit: Patrick Hrobowski v. USA

As petitioner was sentenced according to four predicate offenses, two of which were facially infirm, a subsequent change in the law enabling a challenge to the other two predicates that was ultimately successful as to one of them does not allow a late challenge to the two infirm predicates.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-17/C:16-3549:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2219599:S:0
.
~ , ,

Seventh Circuit: Raul Perez-Gonzalez v. Jacqueline Lashbrook

State habeas determination that petitioner's plea deal did not implicitly waive the state's power to seek contempt sanctions for noncompliance was not an unreasonable determination of the facts or application of facts to law.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-17/C:18-1480:J:Brennan:aut:T:fnOp:N:2219305:S:0
.
~ ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)