To view these cases distributed by Findlaw.com you must first sign in to Findlaw.com. "Findlaw summaries [may] include opoinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawl.
U.S. Supreme Court, April 23, 2008
Virginia v. Moore, No. 06-1082
In a case raising the issue of whether a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment by making an arrest based on probable cause but prohibited by state law, the Supreme Court rules that warrantless arrests for crimes committed in the presence of an arresting officer are reasonable under the Constitution, and that while states are free to regulate such arrests however they desire, state restrictions do not alter the Fourth Amendment's protections.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 24, 2008
US v. Morales-Aldahondo , No. 06-2533
Conviction for possession of child pornography is affirmed over claims that the district court: 1) should have suppressed incriminating evidence because it was obtained pursuant to a search warrant predicated on stale evidence; and 2) erred by allowing the government to display unfairly prejudicial explicit images to the jury.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 22, 2008
Emokah v. Muksasey , No. 07-3115
Where an alien whose previous visa application has been denied receives a visa after providing false information about his/her identity, that conduct constitutes willful misrepresentation of a material fact for purposes of 8 U.S.C. section 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 23, 2008
Martinez v. INS, No. 03-41049, 05-3319
Petition for review of an order denying cancellation of removal for failure to satisfy the seven-year continuous residence requirement of the now-repealed INA section 212(c) is denied where an application of the "criminal-offense stop-time rule" under 8 U.S.C. section 1229b(d)(1)(B) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA") to petitioner's pre-IIRIRA offense was not impermissibly retroactive.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 23, 2008
US v. Rittweger, No. 05-3600, 05-3766, 05-3769
Conviction of multiple defendants for conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud, and commercial bribery, using facilities of interstate commerce to carry on and facilitate commercial bribery, wire fraud, and securities fraud is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred by denying defendants' motion to sever under Fed. Crim. Pro. Rule 8(b) and Rule 14; and 2) the government violated Brady, when it failed to produce arguably exculpatory evidence with respect to a charged co-conspirator until the week of trial.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 23, 2008
US v. Parnell , No. 06-4551
Sentence for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense and being a felon in possession of a firearm is affirmed over defendant's claims that the district court erred in finding him a Career Offender under U.S.S.G. sections 4B1.1 and 4B1.2 because the youthful offender adjudication he received for a conviction of attempted second degree burglary in a state court "set aside" his conviction.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 23, 2008
Matican v. City of New York , No. 06-1983
Read more...
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 24, 2008
Mora v. People of the State of New York, No. 06-0341
A state-party's failure to fulfill its obligation to inform a detained alien of the prospect of consular notification and access, pursuant to Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, cannot form the basis for the individual to bring an action for damages under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 42 U.S.C. section 1983, or directly under the Vienna Convention.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 24, 2008
US v. Negron , No. 06-3614
In a case wherein the district court declined to resentence the defendant on a remand pursuant to US v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2005), the order is affirmed over claims that the district court erroneously refused to consider the terms of a rejected plea offer in which the government had offered to recommend a lower sentence.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 25, 2008
US v. Williams , No. 05-4416, 05-6778
Sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine is vacated and remanded where the district judge committed procedural error by relying improperly on the plea policy of a county district attorney, whereas the judge should have resorted to the Sentencing Guidelines as the starting point for determining an appropriate sentence.
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 21, 2008
US v. Jackson, No. 06-5205
Sentence for making false statements to police after defendant entered a plea agreement is affirmed over claims that the district court did not give sufficient consideration to whether she should be sentenced to probation, as defendant waived her right to appeal. .
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 22, 2008
US v. Hawes, No. 06-3334
Sentence for mail fraud is vacated and remanded where the district court improperly calculated the applicable guidelines range, as defendant's conduct did not qualify for an identity theft enhancement.
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 25, 2008
U.S. v. Abuelhawa, No. 07-4639
A conviction and sentence for knowingly and intentionally using a communication facility for drug distribution is affirmed where: 1) a person's status as a facilitator alone can give rise to criminal liability regardless of the status as a buyer or distributor; and 2) the government presented sufficient evidence of drug distribution to support the jury verdict.
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 22, 2008
Arguelles-Olivares v. Mukasey, No. 05-60914
Petition for review of a removal order of petitioner who pled guilty to knowingly filing a false tax return, on the basis that his prior conviction for filing a false federal tax return did not constitute a removable offense, is denied where the record contained evidence, including an admissible Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSR) prepared in the tax offense proceedings as evidence of the amount of loss in his immigration proceedings, that supported the BIA's conclusion that plaintiff was an aggravated felon.
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 23, 2008
Haynes vs. Quarterman, No. 07-70004
Denial of an application for a certificate of appealability following denial of habeas relief is affirmed in part, but reversed in part where, in light of the recent decision in Snyder v. Louisiana, 128 S.Ct. 1203 (2008), petitioner is entitled to a COA in connection with his Batson claims in respect to two potential jurors.
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 24, 2008
US v. Ogba , No. 06-10519
Defendants' convictions and sentences resulting from a scheme involving billing Medicare for false prescriptions for wheelchairs are affirmed in part over claims of error regarding: 1) whether the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to provide defendants with a copy of a colloquy between a recruiter and the judge; 2) a refusal to admit an e-mail about the recruiter into evidence; 3) cumulative errors regarding the recruiter's testimony; 4) a Confrontation Clause claim, and whether any such error was harmless; 5) a deliberate ignorance instruction; 6) whether the indictment was void; and 7) whether the indictment failed to allege an offense enumerated in the Constitution. One defendant's sentence is reversed and remanded based on a claim that his convictions under the health care fraud and illegal remuneration statutes were multiplicitous and violated double jeopardy.
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 24, 2008
U.S. v. Goosby, No. 07-5229
In a tax fraud case, defendant's conviction and sentence is affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence of the materiality of the false statements and of the defendant's responsibility for submitting fraudulent tax returns; 2) the testimony of an investigative analyst was admissible as it was limited to "constructing the sequence of events" in the investigation and did not directly implicate the defendant in criminal activity, nor discuss character or prior bad acts by defendant in such a way where its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value; 3) no plain error occurred in instructing the jury that they could consider the violation of IRS rules and regulations in deciding whether or not a crime was committed; and 4) the sentence imposed was reasonable.
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 25, 2008
Keene v. Mitchell, No. 05-3538
Denial of death row inmate's petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed where: 1) petitioner failed to demonstrate that his equal protection rights were violated because he did not demonstrate discriminatory purpose and effect in the prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty; and 2) petitioner's due process rights were not violated in a pretrial identification procedure since it was reliable under the totality of the circumstances, and any error in admitting the identification was harmless.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 24, 2008
Domka v. Portage County, Wisconsin, No. 07-2984
In a suit alleging plaintiff had constitutionally protected liberty interests in his Huber privileges and the Home Detention Program (HDP) and that he was deprived of these without the requisite procedural due process, summary judgment defendant is affirmed where: 1) the plea agreement between plaintiff and the prosecutor did not give rise to a "legitimate entitlement" in the programs; 2) there was no due process violation since plaintiff waived his due process protections when he agreed to participate in the program, but the court reserves the question of whether a prisoner has a liberty interest in a home detention program; and 3) failure to seek a court order for the suspension of plaintiff's Huber privileges did not violate due process since failure to comply with state procedural rules does not violate the federal constitution. .
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 24, 2008
Koger v. Bryan, No. 05-1904
In a suit against prison officials claiming that failure to accommodate his religious-based dietary request was a violation of his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and the First and Fourteenth Amendments, summary judgment for defendants and other rulings are reversed and remanded for further proceedings where: 1) the record established that prison officials violated plaintiff's rights as secured under RLUIPA, and judgment for plaintiff on his claim brought under that statute was warranted; and 2) the district court abused its discretion in failing to exercise the discretion available to it under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 25, 2008
U.S. v. Thompson, No. 06-1741
Defendant-appellant's conviction and sentence for offenses, stemming from defendant's setting his house on fire in an attempt to collect on an insurance policy, is affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict; 2) there was no error in the district court's guideline calculations as the Sixth Amendment does not require that a jury find that a defendant committed murder before a district court can apply the Sentencing Guidelines' murder cross-reference; 3) there was no error in imposing consecutive statutory maximum sentences equivalent to 190 years for all counts of the conviction because the Guidelines range was life imprisonment; and 4) a Fifth Amendment due process claim was foreclosed by precedent.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 24, 2008
US v. Dorsey , No. 07-1998
In a prosecution for drug-related offenses, admission of prior crime evidence under Fed. R. of Evid. Rule 404(b) is affirmed where: 1) the narrow holding in Old Chief v. US, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), that the prosecution must sometimes accept a defendant's stipulation, did not apply to underlying case; and 2) the district court did not err in refusing to require the prosecution to accept defendant's stipulation and in admitting the proffered Rule 404(b) evidence. .
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 25, 2008
US v. Horn , No. 07-2085
Defendant's conviction for abusive sexual contact is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court improperly admitted allegations of his prior sexual misconduct under Fed. Rule of Evid. 413; 2) the district court erroneously denied a motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence that one of the alleged victims' testimony was coached by her parents; and 3) the evidence adduced was insufficient to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 25, 2008
US v. Jones , No. 08-1692
Denial of defendant's motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 706 to the U.S.S.G., is affirmed where the district court properly determined that defendant's guidelines range was unaffected by the amendment. .
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 21, 2008
US v. Arnold, No. 06-50581
In a criminal prosecution for possession of child pornography, grant of a motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant's laptop while entering the US border at the Los Angeles International Airport is reversed where: 1) the district court's holding that particularized suspicion is required to search a laptop based on cases involving the search of the person was erroneous; 2) there was nothing in the record to indicate that the manner in which officers conducted the search was "particularly offensive" and defendant's analogy to a search of a home based on a laptop's storage capacity is without merit; and 3) the First Amendment does not require a higher level of suspicion for searches of "expressive material."
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 22, 2008
Penuliar v. Mukasey, No. 03-71578
Petition for review of a decision finding petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure, and ordering that he be deported, is granted where: 1) evading an officer in violation of California Vehicle Code section 2800.2(a), is not categorically a "crime of violence" under 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(F); and 2) the evidence was insufficient to establish that petitioner pled guilty to a "theft offense" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(G).
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 24, 2008
Nicanor-Romero v. Mukasey, No. 03-73564
Petition for review of an order of removal is granted where the government failed to show that petitioner's California Penal Code section 647.6(a) misdemeanor conviction, for annoying or molesting a child under the age of 18, made him removable on the ground that it constituted a "crime involving moral turpitude" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 24, 2008
US v. Shi, No. 06-10389
A foreign national who forcibly seizes control of a foreign vessel in international waters may be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. when such vessel is intercepted by federal authorities. Foreign national's conviction and sentence for seizing control over a ship by force, and performing an act of violence likely to endanger the safety of the ship, is affirmed over challenges regarding: 1) the district court's jurisdiction; 2) the sufficiency of the indictment; 3) the admissibility of a statement to an agent; 4) the admissibility of letters seized from defendant's bunk; and 5) the constitutionality of his sentence.
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 22, 2008
Yang v. Archuleta, No. 07-1459
In proceedings arising following dismissal of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. section 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely, pro se state prisoner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted but his request for a certificate of appealability (COA) is denied, and the application dismissed, where no reasonable jurist could debate a finding that petitioner's proffer of extraordinary circumstances and diligence did not entitle him to equitable tolling.
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 23, 2008
York v. City of Las Cruces, No. No. 07-2150
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging violations of plaintiff's First and Fourth Amendment claims, denial of qualified immunity for defendants-police officers is affirmed where: 1) accepting plaintiff's version of events as true, a fact finder could easily find constitutional violations; 2) plaintiff's right not to be arrested for saying an expletive under the circumstances was clearly established; and 3) defendants waived a claim that officers had probable cause to believe that plaintiff had committed the offense of disturbing the peace based on his discussion with an officer about the legality of his conduct.
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 23, 2008
United States v. Jones, No. 07-4141
In a prosecution for possessing iodine knowing it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, denial of defendant's motion to suppress statements she made to a federal agent is affirmed where, under the totality of the circumstances, defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes at the time the statements were made.
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 21, 2008
US v. Velasquez , No. 06-16637
Sentence for violation of supervised release is vacated and remanded where the district court: 1) exceeded its statutory authority by basing defendant's sentence on a disapproval of the fact that immigration officials had released defendant on bond pending the outcome of his asylum proceedings; and 2) lacked jurisdiction over immigration matters.
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 22, 2008
US v. Moore , No. 07-10326
Conviction for conspiracy to accept an illegal gratuity, witness tampering, and bribery is affirmed over claims that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to prove a conviction of conspiracy to accept an illegal gratuity and an "official act", as well as "witness tempering"; 2) there was a material variance between the allegations of conspiracy in the indictment and the evidence produced at trial; 3) the government failed to prove a single conspiracy as alleged in the indictment; 4) the district court erred in its instructions on conspiracy and elements of bribery.
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 23, 2008
US v. Livesay , No. 06-11303
On remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Gall v. US, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007), a sentence for a $1.4 billion fraud scheme is vacated and remanded where the district court committed Gall procedural error by: 1) legally erring in a U.S.S.G. section 5K1.1 downward departure; and 2) failing to adequately explain its sentence variance from the advisory Guidelines range to its chosen sentence in a way that allows for any meaningful appellate review.
U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, April 25, 2008
U.S. v. Bryant, No. 06-3129
A conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm and possession of firearms and ammunition by a felon is affirmed in part over claims of error regarding: 1) insufficiency of the evidence; 2) erroneous and misleading supplemental jury instruction; and 3) violation of the Jury Selection and Service Act (JSSA). However, the conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm is reversed and remanded for futher proceedings where the trial was commenced more than 70 non-excludable days after the speedy trial clock began running, in violation of the Speedy Trial Act (STA).
Supreme Court of California, April 21, 2008
People v. Zamudio , No. S074414
Conviction and death penalty for first-degree murder and residential robbery is vacated as to one multiple-murder special circumstances finding but otherwise affirmed in its entirety over claims that trial court erred during guilt phase on multiple evidentiary rulings, during penalty phase on multiple instructional rulings, and that the cumulative effects of errors were prejudicial and required reversal.
Read more...
New York Court of Appeals, April 24, 2008
People v. Mitchell, No. 51
Conviction for burglary and related charges is affirmed over defendant's claims that his burglary conviction should be reversed because he was indicted only on one count of burglary, yet the trial jury was able to consider two alleged entries into the building, and it was unclear which of those resulted in the conviction.
Supreme Court of Florida, April 24, 2008
State of Florida v. Kettell, No. SC07-573
The wanton or malicious intent element of the crime of wantonly or maliciously shooting into a building, as defined by Florida Statutes section 790.19, is not established solely by evidence that a defendant fired a shot at, within, or into a building. The state also must prove that the shooting was done wantonly or maliciously as those terms are defined in the standard jury instruction.
California Appellate Districts, April 21, 2008
People v. Garcia , No. B194011
Conviction and sentence for voluntary manslaughter is affirmed over claims that the trial court: 1) committed prejudicial error in failing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder; 2) imposed an upper term sentence for voluntary manslaughter based on factual determinations made by the trial judge, not the jury, in violation of defendant's federal constitutional right to a jury trial under Cunningham v. California 549 U.S. ___ (2007).
California Appellate Districts, April 22, 2008
People v. Figueroa , No. E041876
Sentence for various sex-related offenses against a minor is affirmed over claims that the sentencing court erroneously concluded that terms for aggravated sexual assaults of a minor had to be run consecutively to each other under the provisions of Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d).
California Appellate Districts, April 22, 2008
People v. Selga , No. C055082
In a case wherein a criminal protective order under Penal Code section 1203.097 was imposed on defendant requiring him to stay away from his ex-girlfriend's current boyfriend as a probation condition, the order is stricken and remanded for consideration of a similar order under another Code section where the boyfriend was not a person protected within Penal Code section 1203.097, and thus, the criminal protective order was invalid.
California Appellate Districts, April 23, 2008
People v. Jacinto , No. A117076
In a case wherein a material defense witness, incarcerated and facing deportation, was served with a subpoena but immediately deported upon completion of his sentence, grant of defendant's motion to dismiss the information is reversed where the trial court erroneously concluded that the sheriff's department's act of releasing the witness to federal custody was state action.
California Appellate Districts, April 23, 2008
People v. Litmon , No. H031348
A retroactive order of commitment against defendant under the new provisions of Sexually Violent Predator Act after denying defendant's motion to dismiss consolidated petitions to extend his involuntary commitment is reversed and remanded where: 1) defendant's due process rights were violated by excessive pretrial delay; and 2) sections 6604 and 6604.1 of Welf. & Inst. Code in effect in March 2007 did not authorize an order imposing an indeterminate term of commitment retroactive to the date upon which defendant was first committed as an SVP under predecessor law.
California Appellate Districts, April 23, 2008
People v. Soukomlane, No. F052781
Conviction for willful infliction of corporal injury on a spouse and possession of controlled substance paraphernalia is reversed and remanded where the trial court: 1) ordered defendant shackled without taking precautions to keep the jury from hearing and seeing his shackles; and 2) removed defendant to a back room where he could not hear part of the prosecutor's examination of a key witness against him, which constituted a reversible denial of his constitutional right to counsel. .
California Appellate Districts, April 24, 2008
People v. Keshishian , No. B194821
Conviction for murder, vehicular manslaughter, and leaving the scene of an accident is affirmed over defendant's claim that his request to discharge retained counsel was erroneously denied, as the trial court applied the correct standard in rejecting defendant's last-minute attempt to discharge counsel and delay the start of trial.
