US v. Suggs, 09-2700, concerned a challenge to the district court’s application at sentencing of a 4-level increase under U.S.S.G. section 2K2.1(b)(6) for using or possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense, in a conviction of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm.  In affirming, the court held that possession alone is sufficient to bring a felony in which the firearm was involved within the meaning of section 2K2.1(b)(6) as long as the handgun had some purpose or effect in, or facilitated, the related felony.  The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant’s possession of the firearm while resisting officers under section 35-44-3-3 amounted to a felony under Indiana law.

 

In Re: Res. Tech. Corp., 08-4118, concerned a challenge to the bankruptcy court’s rejection of the bankruptcy trustee’s proposed assignments of the debtor’s contracts with four Illinois landfills, and an order requiring a company, managed by the debtor’s key officers, to pay the debtor’s Chapter 7 operating expenses in exchange for the assignment of certain contracts, in Chapter 7 proceedings.  In affirming the judgment, the court held that the bankruptcy court carefully evaluated the assumption-and-assignment proposal under section 365(f)(2)(B), and its decision to deny the trustee’s motion was sound.  The court also held that there is no reason to disturb the bankruptcy judge’s determination that the company failed to comply with the court order requiring an escrow deposit.  Lastly, the district court’s contempt finding is fully supported by the record, and the court thoroughly considered and properly rejected the company’s defense to contempt.

Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 09-4156, concerned a challenge to the district court’s grant of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, in plaintiffs’ suit challenging the City of Indianapolis’s ordinance requiring adult bookstores to be closed all day on Sunday and between midnight and 10 a.m. on other days.  In affirming, the court held that, given the state of the record, district court’s decision is sound, as the single article offered by the city concerns a dispersal ordinance rather than an hour-of-operation limit, and the parties should devote their energies to compiling information from which a reliable final decision may be made after a trial on the merits.

  • Full text of US v. Suggs, 09-2700
  • Full text of Mobile Anesthesiologists Chicago, LLC v. Anesthesia Assoc. of Houston Metroplex, P.A., 09-2658
  • Full text of In Re: Res. Tech. Corp., 08-4118
  • Full text of Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 09-4156

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules