US v. Martin, 07-2272, concerned a challenge to convictions of defendants for violating various provisions of 21 U.S.C. sections 841, 843 and 846, for their respective roles in a narcotics conspiracy. 

 

US v. Hudson, 09-3518, involved a prosecution of defendant for possession of a firearm as a felon and possession of a stolen firearm, district court’s conclusion that defendant’s prior look-alike drug conviction amounted to a “controlled-substance offense,” in sentencing defendant to 72 months’ imprisonment.  In affirming the sentence, the court held that controlled-substance offenses include state-law offenses related to controlled or counterfeit substances punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

Rexam Beverage Can Co. v. Bolger, 08-3403, concerned a challenge to a judgment in favor of defendant-landlord on his counterclaim on several Illinois state law grounds, in a commercial landlord-tenant dispute involving at a warehouse with a leaky roof, the replacement of which both landlord and tenant denied was their responsibility.  The court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that tenant was contractually bound to replace the roof of the warehouse.  Also, district court’s award of $405,470 in damages for tenant’s failure to replace the roof is affirmed.  However, district court’s Holdover Statute award of $1,156,232.24 is vacated and remanded for a determination of the fair market net rental value of the property and the assessment of a penalty equal to double that value for the duration of the tenant’s holdover.

Hutchings v. US, 08-3538, concerned a challenge to the district court’s denial of defendant’s request for habeas relief, claiming that his attorney’s false guarantee of a Rule 35 reduction in his sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.  In affirming, the court held that defendant’s ineffective assistance claim fails because he did not adequately show that he would not have pled guilty even had his attorney fully explained to him that a Rule 35 motion to reduce is sentence was not guaranteed.  Further, an evidentiary hearing in this case was not necessary because the record conclusively showed that defendant was not prejudiced under Strickland and is therefore entitled to no relief.

Related Resources:

  • Full text of US v. Martin, 07-2272
  • Full text of Hutchings v. US, 08-3538
  • Full text of Rexam Beverage Can Co. v. Bolger, 08-3403
  • Full text of US v. Hudson, 09-3518

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