Posts

US v. Glosser, 08-4015, concerned a state’s challenge to the district court’s imposition of a 121-month sentence in a prosecution of defendant for possessing more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. In vacating the sentence, the court remanded the case as the district court committed procedural error by announcing and promising that it would impose the mandatory minimum sentence during the change of plea hearing, before it knew the advisory guidelines range or had heard either party’s argument regarding the sentence....

Sneed v. Johnson, No. 07-3349, involved a challenge to the district court’s denial of a death-row inmate’s petition for habeas relief. As stated in the decision: “In the present case, Sneed’s counsel produced 17 witnesses, including three psychological experts, at least some of whose testimony concerned Sneed’s mental health and severely troubled childhood.” In rejecting defendant’s ineffective assistance claim that his counsel failed to investigate a possibility that he suffered from brain damage, the court concluded that he has failed to show that the state court’s application of Strickland was objectionably unreasonable....

In the IRS’s appeal from an order allowing a carry-back for certain of Debtor’s claimed expenses, the order is affirmed in part, where a distributor’s inability to resell a defective product does not qualify as “damage to or loss of the use of property” under I.R.C. section 172(f)(4)(A); but reversed in part, where the Debtor’s pension plan payments qualified as specified liability losses. Read the full decision in In re Harvard Indus....

Criminal masterminds may make the big bucks, but the minions get out of jail faster. The Sentencing Guidelines state “titles such as “kingpin” or “boss” are not controlling. Factors the court should consider include the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others....

Many of us were surprised to learn that Kim Kardashian West was studying the law, especially since she’s taking such an unconventional route to becoming an attorney. She’s eschewing traditional law school and interning instead. And she’s getting quite a few people out of jail while she’s at it. Lawyers Brittany K. Barnett and MiAngel Cody confirmed that Kardashian worked on a campaign to free 17 people from federal prison in just 90 days....

In an action brought by a class member who had participated in tobacco litigation in Florida as part of nationwide tobacco litigation in the late 1990s brought by several states against several tobacco companies, district court’s decision to enjoin the parties to the state-court litigation from proceeding with an action in Florida state court raising matters relating to the Settlement Agreement is affirmed where: 1) the claims in the state court litigation fall squarely within the subject matter of the Settlement Agreement and the terms of the district court’s permanent injunction; 2) given the broad grant of power by Congress under the interpleader statute, there can be no doubt that the district court was acting within its authority when it enjoined the state court litigation; and 3) the district court did not err in enjoining the litigation of the state action as necessary in aid of its jurisdiction as the state court complaint does not set forth claims in a manner sufficiently detached from the district court’s administration of the settlement fund to avoid the permanent injunction in the federal interpleader action’s final judgment....

First California. Then Virginia. Now Nevada. State after state after state, attorneys general are backing down in the the battle over gay marriage. Those who fight face costly, and likely losing battles, followed by years of appeals. And for those who punt? It’s quite possible someone else will step in. To predict the outcome in Nevada, prior cases demonstrate that standing is tricky. As we saw in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Perry and Windsor decisions, standing is a tricky thing to show in these cases....

The defamation lawsuit filed in the federal Southern District Court of New York by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin against the New York Times has been dismissed. Judge Jed Rakoff noted that Palin’s case failed to adequately make a showing of actual malice to support the public figure defamation claim. Significantly, the case may be ripe for appeal to the Second Circuit because the dismissal was with prejudice as it came after an evidentiary hearing on the issue of malice....

When walking into or out of a medical facility in Chicago, the law prohibits others from coming within eight feet of that person to distribute literature or protest. The law has been dubbed the “bubble zone” law because it creates a bubble around the individual entering or exiting the facility that protesters cannot invade. So-called pro-life “sidewalk counselors” challenged the Chicago law on the basis that it violated their First Amendment rights....

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals offered two important lessons for contract disputes this week. First, choice of venue clauses are sometimes mere suggestions. Second, res judicata can be raised in a motion to dismiss. George Lobrano signed a noncompete agreement with his employer, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., as part of Lobrano’s promotion to a management position in the company’s Shreveport, La. office. Minnesota law governed the Employee Agreement, and the choice of venue clause required litigation to be initiated in Hennepin County, or the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota....

Petition for review of the BIA’s order removing petitioner from the U.S. based on a prior controlled substance offense is granted where 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(48)’s definition of “conviction” did not include criminal judgments whose only consequence was a suspended non-incarceratory sanction. Read Retuta v. Holder, No. 04-74855 Appellate Information Argued and Submitted October 6, 2009 Filed January 7, 2010 Judges Opinion by Judge Pollak Counsel For Petitioner: James Todd Bennett, El Cerrito, CA...

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed attorney sanctions against Michigan lawyer John Freeman on Tuesday, finding that the district court erred in penalizing Freeman for an “unwarranted and baseless” disclosure request for the mother of a child pornography victim to speak at sentencing, reports The Associated Press. Freeman represented Craig Aleo, a former Michigan school official who pleaded guilty to producing, possessing, and transporting and shipping child pornography. U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman slapped Freeman with $2,000 in attorney sanctions in 2002 after deciding that Freeman filed a meritless motion in a bad-faith effort to intimidate a victim who wished to speak during Aleo’s sentencing hearing, pursuant to her rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA)....

The death penalty’s days are numbered, at least if you trust Justice Scalia’s predictions. Speaking at the University of Minnesota Law School, the justice said it “wouldn’t surprise” him if the High Court declared capital punishment unconstitutional in the near future. His statement drew applause, CBS Minnesota reports, but Justice Scalia is no opponent of capital punishment. He has repeatedly condemned attempts to make executions more difficult through “labyrinthine restrictions” – a sort of “abolition by a million cuts” approach....

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to look at racial gerrymandering in Virginia again, too late to matter this year and maybe not next year either. In Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, the big issue is whether the state’s districts must be redrawn to correct racial gerrymandering. But in taking the case, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that Virginia will resolve the issue itself before oral arguments. Another issue may still make it to the courtroom, however....

Defendant’s drug conviction is affirmed where the district court abused its discretion under the Jencks Act when it did not strike the testimony of a government agent whose grand jury testimony transcript could not be produced, but the error was harmless because the agent’s testimony played only a small part in the government’s case. Read US v. Cardenas-Mendoza, No. 07-10553 Appellate Information Argued and Submitted December 10, 2008 Filed August 26, 2009...

Defendant’s conviction for distributing crack cocaine is affirmed where: 1) considering the similarities between the crimes charged and the subsequent-acts evidence introduced by the government, the mere passage of four years’ time between the events did not render the evidence irrelevant to show knowledge or intent; and 2) the evidence rationally supported an inference that defendant sold crack cocaine to a confidential informant in violation of 21 U.S.C. sections 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C)....

The state of California has always had a reputation for leading the nation in progressive political ideas, and recently two California cities have passed laws that show just how far they’re willing to go to keep their constituents happy. While the City of Oakland just passed an ordinance decriminalizing magic mushrooms and other plant-based hallucinogens, the City of Beverly Hills just banned nearly all tobacco sales in the famously chic city....

Mohammed al-Qahtani was alleged to be the “20th hijacker” of the September 11, 2001 hijackings. He’s been held at the U.S. facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since 2002. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has attempted to use the Freedom of Information Act to get “certain videos and photographs” of al-Qahtani – ostensibly images of him being tortured, which CCR claimed has been happening for the last 13 years. Today, the Second Circuit affirmed a district court ruling denying CCR access to those documents on the ground that it could compromise national security....

Day v. Apoliona, No. 08-16704, involved an action by native Hawaiians contending that the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a Hawaii state agency that administered a portion of a public trust’s proceeds, breached the trust. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants, holding that 1) alleged violations of state laws regarding the management and disposition of funds were not necessarily breaches, under federal law, of the trust itself; and 2) nothing in the trust’s terms or purposes either requires the kind of comparative analysis plaintiffs proposed or suggested that Congress intended to prohibit expenditures whose benefits may extend beyond the trust’s purposes....

In an attorney-plaintiff’s RICO suit against his former law partners involving a dispute over the division of legal fees in cases handled by the law firm, dismissal of the entire case on the ground that the claims are precluded by judgments in previous suits by him against the same defendants is affirmed, but on the basis of Illinois’s one-refiling rule rather than res judicata, which would not bar a claim that the defendants had violated the Memorandum of Understanding....