Posts

In an appeal from the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for reduction of his drug and firearm possession sentence under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2), the district court’s order is affirmed where the district court rejected defendant’s applicable guidelines range, and reduced defendant’s sentence pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. section 3553 factors, and thus any further reduction would not be consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements. Read US v. Sipai, No....

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the Christie v. NCAA matter. The questions asked by the justices and their responses are leading commentators to believe the High Court could very well legalize sports gambling not just in Jersey, but nationwide. Some justices were rather skeptical of the argument that the 1992 federal gaming prohibition was an overreach of Congress’s authority to regulate state activity, and particularly what that would mean for similar congressional enactments....

Richard Franklin was convicted on federal child pornography charges, including advertisement or notice of child pornography. Franklin was a member of a file-sharing website called GigaTribe, which allowed him to approve other users as “friends,” letting them into his “tribe.” Of course, his fellow tribe members wanted child pornography, which he supplied, leading to his conviction. On appeal, he contended that the evidence didn’t support a conviction for “advertisement or notice” of pornography....

Last week, I covered some of the reasons why cybersecurity is a real concern for law firms. Today, let’s talk about what a breach might look like in the law firm setting and the common problems your firm could encounter in the aftermath. Online fraud, threats and security breaches on digital platforms are constantly changing, and the people behind them are constantly studying new methods to breach your security. Staying ahead of the trends could pay off the next time your firm is targeted....

Though the Court granted certiorari in eight cases last week, the first official day of business is today, and the court rung in the new term with a lengthy 94-page orders list, most of which were denials. Though the court’s jurisdiction is discretionary, there are always a few surprises on the denials sheet, as well as a few that we wish they would’ve taken up. Here are some of those rejected petitions:...

It can be a tough job to predict how the Supreme Court will decide any one case. And with Justice Barrett being new to the court there’s an extra bit of unpredictability. However, after oral arguments in California v. Texas on November 10, SCOTUS followers are predicting that enough justices will favor severability to keep the law intact. Why the renewed confidence that the ACA will survive? Because several justices (and, for that matter, many conservative legal academics) have serious questions about whether the Supreme Court could justify rendering the entire law invalid under separation of powers and its own precedent....

In a dispute involving the correct interpretation of contract language, district court’s judgment is remanded where resolving the intended meaning of the the contract on summary judgment was inappropriate as the contract language defining the Prepayment Premium was ambiguous. Read BKCAP, LLC v. CAPTEC Franchise Trust 2000-1, No. 08-3239 Appellate InformationAppeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division.Argued April 6, 2009Decided July 13, 2009...

As the remaining days of the 2011 Term unofficially dwindle into the single digits, the Court is almost finished disposing of its caseload. After the four cases resolved on Thursday, only five cases remain. Those include the Stolen Valor Act challenge, the Arizona immigration appeal, and that little matter of the Affordable Care Act. But instead of looking ahead to what we’re inevitably going to be discussing next week, it’s time to live in the now and focus on today’s Supreme Court opinions....

Petition for review of an order affirming the denial of petitioner’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal is denied where petitioner did not present any evidence that he suffered persecution or will suffer persecution as a result of a refusal to undergo forced sterilization or other resistance to a coercive population control program. Read Jin v. Holder, No. 07-1717 Appellate InformationPetition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals.Submitted: January 14, 2009Decided: July 14, 2009...

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to rehear arguments regarding whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects medical marijuana use, the Phoenix New Times reports. In May, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel found that the ADA does not cover medical marijuana use since marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug under federal law. This week, a 2-1 panel voted to deny rehearing. The plaintiffs obtained their medical marijuana through collectives located in Lake Forest and Costa Mesa, California, despite local ordinances banning dispensaries in the cities....

In Carr v. US, No. 08-1301, the Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit’s affirmance of defendant’s conviction for failure to register as a sex offender in Indiana under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), holding that 18 U.S.C. section 2250 does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before SORNA’s effective date. As the Court wrote: “Since 1994, federal law has required States, as a condition for the receipt of certain law enforcement funds, to maintain federally compliant systems for sex offender registration and community notification....

Absolving a sex offender for posting on Facebook, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina law that banned registered sex offenders from using social media. In the unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court said the statute violated the First Amendment. It abridges “lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Packingham v. North Carolina. “A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more,” the Court said in affirming and remanding the widely reported case....

The Department of Health and Hospitals won an appeal in a Medicare reimbursement challenge in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals this week. In an unpublished opinion, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision denying Jeanes Hospital’s (Jeanes) claim for reimbursement based on depreciation losses incurred as a result of a statutory merger. In 1994, Jeanes Hospital, a non-profit Quaker institution, was forced to explore partnership possibilities with several regional service providers to ensure its survival due to poor economic conditions....

Exclusion of reverse 404(b) evidence in crack related conviction US v. Alayeto, 10-2037, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. In affirming, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling defendant’s proffered evidence of her co-defendant’s post-arrest conduct inadmissible, and this exclusion did not violate defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense as the evidence defendant sought to introduce could not have played a major role in casting doubt on her guilt....

District court’s imposition of a sentence of four-months’ imprisonment on a defendant convicted of wire fraud for defrauding several people out of money and property, by posing as an expectant mother willing to give her child up for adoption, is affirmed where: 1) district court correctly applied the “vulnerable victim” and “mass-marketing” sentence enhancements; and 2) the district court properly considered the section 3553(a) factors. Read US v. Christiansen, No. 09-1925...

In a conviction of defendant for conspiring to sell illegal drugs, district court did not err in imposing a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence as, although defendant had served 18 months in state prison for a state drug offense that parties agree was relevant conduct in the federal prosecution, there is no concurrent sentence and cannot be one when the defendant is no longer subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment. Read US v....

In a prosecution for possession of a firearm with a removed serial number, denial of defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed where the police did not have reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity was occurring, and thus, the stop of defendant’s vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment. Read US v. See, No. 08-3484 Appellate Information Argued: June 17, 2009 Decided and Filed: July 24, 2009 Judges Opinion by Judge Moore...

Lawyers make the worst surgical patients, because we tend to review lists of complications and ask our doctors about the likelihood of each one. (So my odds of not waking up after anesthesia are 1 in 100,000? How many patients have you treated? Have you already met your statistical loser?) Doctors and medical device manufacturers have a duty to warn patients about likely side effects and glitches, but what kinds of harms does that duty include?...

When the Nine head back to the Bench next week, they’ll move on from the epic six-hour healthcare arguments and consider sentencing disparities in Dorsey v. United States and Hill v. United States. The Supreme Court granted cert in the cases to determine whether the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 can be applied to sentencing for an offense that occurred before the Act’s effective date. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the Act does not apply to defendants who committed crimes before the Act’s enactment, but were sentenced after it became effective....

In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action alleging that defendant retaliated against plaintiff for complaining that his manager had discriminated against him based on his disability, an order denying plaintiff the right to seek compensatory and punitive damages is affirmed where the plain and unambiguous provisions of 42 U.S.C. section 1981a limited the availability of compensatory and punitive damages to those specific ADA claims listed, and retaliation was not on the list....