Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
[07/03]
Tablada v. Thomas
In a case involving whether the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in promulgating a regulation interpreting 18 U.S.C. section 3624(b), which governs the calculation of good conduct time for federal prisoners, the court finds that: 1) the BOP concededly violated the APA by failing to articulate a rational basis for its decision to promulgate the regulation; but 2) the remedy for the violation is to interpret the federal statute in accordance with the BOP's Program Statement 5880.28; and 3) the BOP's methodology for calculating good time credits under Statement 5880.28 was both reasonable and persuasive under applicable law.
[07/03]
US v. Morriss
Denial of a motion to suppress statements made outside the presence of counsel is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erroneously found his Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach during an interview in which he provided inculpatory statements; and 2) the government violated his due process rights by interviewing him during a lapse in representation.
[07/03]
US v. Dodds
Sentence for possession of child pornography is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court failed to adequately consider relevant sentencing factors; and 2) defendant's due process rights were violated because the sentence was imposed after the government presented an inaccurate picture of relevant conduct.
More...
Evidence
[07/03]
US v. Pearce
Convictions and sentences for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) a denial of a motion to suppress evidence based on officers' lack of either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop defendants; and 2) imposition of the 235 months sentence without addressing the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a).
[07/03]
White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
In an employment discrimination suit brought under federal and Michigan state law, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial where: 1) plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to suggest that defendant's purported reason for not promoting him had no basis in fact, did not motivate defendant's decision, or was not sufficient to explain its hiring choice; and 2) plaintiff produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in his favor on both single motive and mixed motive race discrimination claims.
[07/03]
US v. Kimbrel
A conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a firearm with obliterated serial numbers are vacated and the case remanded for a new trial where: 1) defendant's sufficiency challenge fails because defendant failed to move for an acquittal at the close of all the proof and a higher burden of proof applies; and 2) the district court conducted a flawed Batson analysis after defense counsel used a peremptory challenge to dismiss a Caucasian juror.
More...
Sentencing
[07/03]
Tablada v. Thomas
In a case involving whether the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in promulgating a regulation interpreting 18 U.S.C. section 3624(b), which governs the calculation of good conduct time for federal prisoners, the court finds that: 1) the BOP concededly violated the APA by failing to articulate a rational basis for its decision to promulgate the regulation; but 2) the remedy for the violation is to interpret the federal statute in accordance with the BOP's Program Statement 5880.28; and 3) the BOP's methodology for calculating good time credits under Statement 5880.28 was both reasonable and persuasive under applicable law.
[07/03]
US v. Dodds
Sentence for possession of child pornography is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court failed to adequately consider relevant sentencing factors; and 2) defendant's due process rights were violated because the sentence was imposed after the government presented an inaccurate picture of relevant conduct.
[07/03]
US v. Anderson
A conviction for insider trading and money laundering is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the government's evidence was insufficient to convict him, 2) the district court erred in failing to give his theory-of-the-case jury instruction; and 3) that he is entitled to a new trial. The sentence is affirmed over the government's claims of error that the sentence was unreasonable because the court erroneously excluded certain stock sales as relevant conduct when considering the U.S.S.G. for illegal insider training.
More...
White Collar Crime
[07/01]
US v. Andrews
In a prosecution for wire fraud and money laundering in which defendant agreed to forfeit remaining money to the government for division among her victims, denial of a request to impose a constructive trust that would grant claimants priority to the money over defendant's other victims is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the traditional purpose of a constructive trust, avoiding unjust enrichment, would not be served here because the parties in opposition to claimants were other fraud victims, who would not be unjustly enriched by receiving appropriate shares of defendant's remaining loot.
[07/01]
Kawashima v. Mukasey
Japanese natives' petitions for review of removal orders are granted in part where: 1) under circuit precedent, because the statutes to which petitioners pled guilty to violating do not require proof of any particular monetary loss, the circuit court does not examine the record of their convictions to determine whether they necessarily pled guilty to causing a loss in excess of $10,000; and 2) the government failed to show that petitioners' convictions are aggravated felonies under the categorical approach, and thus they are not removable. (Superseding opinion)
[07/01]
Reddington v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp.
Labor Law section 741, which offers exceptional and specialized whistleblower protection over and above the generalized protection afforded by section 740, is meant to safeguard only those employees who are qualified by virtue of training and/or experience to make knowledgeable judgments as to the quality of patient care, and whose jobs require them to make these judgments.
More...
|
