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.
Baze v. Rees, No. 07–5439
Kentucky's lethal injection protocol used as its method of execution does not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. (Five concurring opinions and dissent)
U.S. Supreme Court, April 16, 2008
Burgess v. US, No. 06-11429
The term "felony drug offense" contained in the Controlled Substances Act's (CSA), 21 U.S.C. section 841(b)(1)(A), provision for a 20-year minimum sentence, is defined exclusively by section 802(44) and does not incorporate section 802(13)'s definition of "felony." Consequently, a state drug offense punishable by more than one year qualifies as a "felony drug offense," even if state law classifies the offense as a misdemeanor.
U.S. Supreme Court, April 16, 2008
Begay v. US, No. 06-11543
Driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), as set forth in New Mexico's criminal statutes, is not a "violent felony" as the term is defined in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 16, 2008
US v. Guerrero , No. 06-2745
Conviction for aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery and the use and carrying of firearms in relation to that offense is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) his post-arrest statements were obtained in violation of Miranda; 2) the underlying evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; and 3) evidence of his two prior bank robberies should have been excluded under Fed. R. of Evid. 404(b) and 403. .
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 17, 2008
US v. Cardona-Diaz, No. 06-2315
In a prosecution for drug-related offenses wherein defendant entered into a plea agreement, appeal of sentence is dismissed where: 1) defendant agreed to a valid waiver of his right to appeal his sentence; and 2) enforcement of the plea agreement did not lead to a miscarriage of justice.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 18, 2008
US v. Griffin, No. 07-1475, 07-1477
In a prosecution for filing a false income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. section 7206(1): 1) conviction is affirmed over claims that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence and in instructing the jury on elements of section 7206(1); but 2) sentence is vacated and remanded where the district court, sua sponte, resentenced defendant more than a month after issuing an initial sentence, while under Fed. R. Crim. Pro 35(a), the district court had a strict seven-day window in which it could resentence a defendant.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 18, 2008
Zayas v. Bacardi Corp., No. 07-1950
In a case addressing the parameters of the doctrine of industrial double jeopardy in the context of an arbitral award wherein the arbitrator overrode the employee's double jeopardy argument without comment, summary judgment for arbitrator is affirmed where: 1) the arbitrator was not guilty of any manifested disregard of the law in formulating an arbitral award rooted in a permissible view of the facts and founded on common sense; and 2) its reasoning was neither palpably faulty nor mistakenly predicated on an insupportable assumption.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 17, 2008
US v. Lee, No. 06-4933
In a prosecution for drug-related offenses wherein defendant entered a plea agreement, appeal of sentence is dismissed where the appeal waiver set forth in defendant's plea agreement was valid and enforceable.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 17, 2008
US v. Gill , No. 07-0284
Sentence for making false statements relating to a health care matter is affirmed where the district court did not error conditions of supervised release: 1) preventing defendant from engaging in the business of counseling for the period of supervision; and 2) requiring defendant to make restitution payments in connection with a prior conviction until the financial obligation is paid in full.
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008
US v. Martin, No. 06-4876
Conviction and sentence for arson, use of fire to commit mail fraud and mail fraud are affirmed where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction on the arson and use of fire charges; and 2) defendant's sentence did not violate Double Jeopardy since arson and the use of fire to commit mail fraud constituted separate offenses.
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008
Jackson v. Johnson, No. 07-3
Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed where the Supreme Court of Virginia did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law in denying petitioner's claim that his counsel was deficient in failing to object to the victim-to-defendant comparisons during the prosecution's closing arguments..
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 16, 2008
US v. Reid, No. 06-4826
Conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and murder through the use of a firearm in the course of a drug trafficking crime is affirmed where: 1) although the district court erred in instructing the jury on the conspiracy charge, defendant failed to demonstrate that the error affected his substantial rights; and 2) substantial evidence supported both convictions.
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008
US v. Eff, No. 07-40338
A conviction on three counts of arson is affirmed where, when considering the appropriate reach of the expert testimony and other evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, the evidence was insufficient to warrant a jury instruction on insanity.
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008
US v. Edelkind, No. 06-30777
A conviction for conviction for having "wilfully fail[ed] to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 2 years, or is greater than $10,000", is affirmed over claims regarding whether: 1) the statute of limitations bars his conviction; 2) the district court abused its discretion in delaying the trial in violation of the Speedy Trial Act; 3) the district court erred in its jury instructions on "wilfulness"; and 4) there was sufficient evidence for the conviction.
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 14, 2008
Jeffries v. Morgan, No. 06-5726
Denial of a petition for habeas corpus seeking to overturn a conviction for murder and attempted rape, based on evidence discovered subsequent to trial that implicated another person, is reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where the district court committed reversible error by not reviewing the entire trial record during its review of the habeas petition, and a motion to expand the record should have been granted.
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008
US v. Terry, No. 07-3757
Denial of a motion to suppress evidence in a prosecution for possession of images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct is affirmed over claims that a search warrant permitting federal agents to search defendant's home was not grounded upon probable cause, and that the search therefore violated the Fourth Amendment.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 14, 2008
US v. Clements, No. 07-2981
Conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) his encounter with the arresting officers constituted an illegal seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights; and 2) the district court judge violated his due process rights by failing to sua sponte order a competency hearing during trial.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 14, 2008
US v. Williams, No. 06-3620
Conviction for armed robbery and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence is affirmed where the district judge did not err in ruling that the testimony of eyewitnesses would be admissible at trial since a lineup in which the eyewitnesses identified the defendant was not flawed in any way that would lead to irreparable misidentification.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 14, 2008
US v. Bonner, No. 06-3350
Sentences for wire fraud, theft of government funds and theft of educational funds are affirmed where restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is not a criminal punishment and does not need to be proven to a jury, and the district court properly relied on intended loss in calculating one defendant's advisory guidelines range.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008
Young v. US, No. 07-4015
In a denial of a petition for habeas corpus, certificate of appealability is vacated and the appeal dismissed where the prisoner had no constitutional question for appeal, substantial or otherwise, and the only question he presented was whether the district court abused its discretion in finding that his section 2255 motion was untimely.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008
US v. Sorich, No. 06-4251
Convictions and sentences for mail fraud and making materially false statements to federal investigators in relation to patronage appointments in the City of Chicago's civil service are affirmed over defendants' arguments that: 1) their actions did not constitute mail fraud; 2) the honest services mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. section 1346, is unconstitutionally vague; 3) they did not deprive the city or the people of Chicago of any money or property; 4) the indictments were insufficient; 5) their activities were not sufficiently connected to the use of the mail; 6) the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions; and 7) one defendant was entitled to a sentencing adjustment for playing a minor role.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008
US v. Omole, No. 06-2252
In cross-appeals over sentences for identity theft, one sentence is vacated where the district judge abused his discretion by failing to enunciate persuasive reasons for a downward variance granted to the defendant. Two other sentences are affirmed where: 1) the court refuses to view the discrepancy between sentences of co-defendants as a basis for challenging a sentence; and 2) the judge did not abuse his discretion in relying on a co-defendant's hearsay testimony before the grand jury when calculating the loss amount attributable to the defendant.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 17, 2008
US v. Bush, No. 07-1307
Sentence for distributing crack cocaine is remanded for resentencing where it is unclear from the record whether the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence had it not believed it was constrained by the 100:1 crack to powder cocaine ratio.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 17, 2008
US v. Pruett, No. 06-3500
In light of Watson v. US, 128 S. Ct. 579 (2007), which ruled that "a person does not 'use' a firearm under 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)(1)(A) when he receives it in trade for drugs", US v. Cannon, 88 F.3d 1495 (1996) is no longer good law on that point and defendant's conviction based on an exchange of drugs for a gun is reversed and remanded. .
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 17, 2008
US v. Crawford , No. 07-1888
Conviction for intent to distribute marijuana and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime is affirmed over claims of prosecutorial misconduct which resulted in an unfair trial.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 18, 2008
US v. Huntley , No. 07-3026
Conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm during the commission of a drug trafficking crime is reversed and remanded where the district court's jury instruction, though correct when given, was inconsistent with Supreme Court's recent ruling in Watson v. US, 128 S. Ct. 579 (2007).
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 14, 2008
US v. Perdomo-Espana, No. 07-50232
The test for entitlement to a defense of necessity is objective, as opposed to subjective. The defendant must establish that a reasonable jury could conclude that: 1) he was faced with a choice of evils and reasonably chose the lesser evil; 2) he reasonably acted to prevent imminent harm; 3) he reasonably anticipated a causal relation between his conduct and the harm to be avoided; and 4) he reasonably believed there were no other legal alternatives to violating the law.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 14, 2008
US v. Rising Sun, No. 06-30614
Consecutive life sentences for second degree murders are vacated and remanded where the district court abused its discretion in applying: 1) a "vulnerable victim" enhancement to defendant's sentence solely based on the remote location in which the victims found themselves when attacked; and 2) a two-level "obstruction of justice" enhancement solely on the basis of actions that defendant took before an investigation had begun.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 14, 2008
US v. Ibrahim, No. 07-50153
Denial of defendant's motion for return of property pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, filed at a time when no criminal charges were pending, is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court improperly converted the motion for return of property into a motion for summary judgment, and then decided the issue in an ad hoc proceeding, under a preponderance of the evidence standard; 2) applying the appropriate standard, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendant received actual notice of the forfeiture.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008
US v. Reveles-Espinoza, No. 05-50905
Defendant's conviction for being a previously excluded and deported alien found in the U.S. is affirmed over claims that the deportation underlying his conviction was improper because: 1) the immigration judge failed to advise him he was eligible for cancellation of removal; and 2) he received insufficient notice of the asserted basis for his deportation.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008
US v. Grissom, No. 06-10688
A sentence for distribution of cocaine base is vacated and remanded where: 1) the government preserved its objection to the sentence calculation; 2) the district court made no relevant conduct determination, but instead made an erroneous legal determination that it was not required to take such conduct into account; and 3) it erred by refusing to consider dismissed quantities of crack cocaine in calculating the sentence.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 16, 2008
In re: AFI Holding, Inc., No. 06-55033, 06-55070
In bankruptcy proceedings involving a bankrupt company that had been operated as a Ponzi scheme, summary judgment for the bankruptcy trustee avoiding transfers from bankruptcy debtor to appellant-investor is affirmed where: 1) investor's argument that the debtor's transfers were not actually fraudulent failed because the scheme operator's declaration, coupled with the circuit court's treatment of Ponzi schemes in the context of fraudulent transfers, dictated to the contrary; and 2) the district court was correct to conclude that the good faith exception to actually fraudulent transfers was not barred as a matter of law because the investor's right to rescission and restitution were "reasonably equivalent value" as described by prior case law.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 16, 2008
Foster v. US, No. 06-56843
In a suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that ATF agents damaged hundreds of his handguns and long guns, as well as ammunition and packaging, which they had seized, dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where, under CAFRA, the re-waiver of sovereign immunity in 28 U.S.C. section 2680(c)(1)-(4) applies only to property seized solely for the purpose of forfeiture, even if the government had in mind, and later pursued, judicial forfeiture of property seized initially for a legitimate criminal investigative purpose.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 17, 2008
US v. Garcia, No. 05-30356
Sentences imposed for drug-related offenses are affirmed primarily where the district court did not commit plain error by: 1) failing to explicitly set the maximum number of non-treatment related drug tests to which one defendant will be exposed as a condition of supervised release; nor 2) imposing a financial disclosure condition on a defendant who has been convicted of a drug trafficking offense and has a history of drug use. (Superseding opinion)
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 14, 2008
Lowery v. County of Riley, No. 06-3369
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a former inmate and his daughter against individuals and municipal entities responsible for his arrest, conviction, and incarceration, arising after DNA testing proved he did not commit the crimes, appeal from denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment is dismissed in part, affirmed in part, and reversed in part where: 1) the circuit court lacked jurisdiction on the appeals of claims for coercion, failure to investigate, fabrication of evidence, and malicious prosecution; 2) denial of qualified immunity as to plaintiffs' claim for loss of familial association required reversal as there was no evidence that any of the defendants directed their conduct at the familial relationship; and 3) qualified immunity shielded defendants as to supervisory and conspiracy claims premised on the loss of association claim.
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008
US v. Pena-Hermosillo, No. 06-8075
Defendant's below-Guidelines range sentence for drug-related offenses is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court committed procedural error in its calculation of the advisory Guidelines range because it did not provide a sufficient explanation for its denial of certain enhancements; and 2) an alternative holding that the sentence "would be imposed even if the advisory guideline range was determined to be improperly calculated" was likewise procedurally unreasonable.
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008
US v. Quaintance, No. 07-2137, 07-2140, 07-2143
In interlocutory appeals from denial of defendants' motions to dismiss an indictment for conspiracy to possess and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and grant of the government's motion in limine barring the defendants from raising a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) defense at trial, the appeals are dismissed where defendants did not assert a valid right not to be tried under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule.
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 16, 2008
US v. Gabaldon, No. 06-2348
Dismissal of pro se federal prisoner's motion under 28 U.S.C. section 2255 on the ground that it was filed more than one year after his convictions became final is vacated where the district court abused its discretion in sua sponte dismissing the action on this record in light of petitioner's showing of state interference with his filing, specifically, his placement in segregation and the confiscation of all his legal materials by prison officials while the deadline for filing expired.
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 14, 2008
US v. Mock , No. 06-15861
Conviction for arson is affirmed over defendant's claims that his due process rights were violated because the prosecution made inflammatory remarks during closing argument and the cumulative errors made by the district court denied him a fair trial. However, the sentence is vacated and remanded where the district court's findings were inadequate to support its application of a cross-reference to attempted first-degree murder, U.S.S.G. section 2A2.1(a)(1).
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 16, 2008
Acosta v. US Atty. Gen. , No. 06-10120
Petition for review of an order denying a motion for continuance of removal proceedings is denied where the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petition as: 1) petitioner's conviction was a crime "related to a controlled substance" under 8 U.S.C. section 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II); and 2) the petition presented no constitutional claim or question of law to confer jurisdiction under section 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D).
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 16, 2008
US v. Westry, No. 06-13847
In a criminal case involving the death of a drug addict after utilizing purchased controlled substances, sentence of multiple defendants for drug-related offenses is vacated and remanded in part where: 1) the jury's and trial court's finding that a defendant was a member of the drug conspiracy prior to the victim's death was based on insufficient evidence; and 2) the government conceded that the district court erroneously applied a death enhancement to defendants' sentences on substantive drug distribution charges, as the criminal conduct giving rise to the substantive charges occurred after the victim's death.
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 17, 2008
US v. Harrell, No. 06-15410
Sentence for obstruction of justice is vacated and remanded where the district court incorrectly applied the sentencing guidelines in calculating defendant's base offense level.
U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008
US v. Byfield, No. 06-3182
Appeal from a denial of a motion to modify a sentence for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute is dismissed where: 1) a motion to modify a sentence under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) is part of a defendant's criminal proceeding and therefore subject to the 10-day time limit of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; 2) defendant's notice of appeal was untimely filed; and 3) the government's objection to defendant's notice of appeal was proper because it was raised in the government's initial brief.
U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008
US v. Rawlings, No. 06-3087
Conviction for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not object to the judge's questioning of jurors or the prosecutor's closing argument; and 2) there was no plain error in the judge's practice of allowing jurors to submit questions to be asked of witnesses or closing arguments by the prosecutor.
Supreme Court of California, April 14, 2008
People v. Valencia, No. S051451
The corpus delicti rule applies to unadjudicated crimes offered in aggravation at the penalty phase of a capital trial under current law. A conviction for first degree murder and death sentence is affirmed on automatic appeal over claims of error regarding: 1) prosecutorial misconduct; 2) exclusion of defense evidence; 3) jury instructions; 4) the sufficiency of the evidence; 5) the admission of preliminary hearing testimony; 6) the admission of hearsay evidence to prove corpus delicti; 7) admission of evidence of a photographic lineup; 8) admission of victim impact evidence; 9) limits on defense counsel's jury argument; 10) challenges to California's death penalty law; 11) international law; and 12) cumulative error.
Illinois Supreme Court, April 17, 2008
People v. Howard, No. 104553
Conviction for three counts of official misconduct based upon a mayor using the city credit card to obtain cash advances is affirmed over claim that an alleged violation of the constitutional provision on public funds could not be used to demonstrate that plaintiff had acted "in excess of his lawful authority."
Illinois Supreme Court, April 17, 2008
People v. Torres, No. 104308
Conviction for murder is affirmed over claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where trial counsel had no constitutional duty to consult about an appeal where counsel had no reason to think either that a rational defendant would want to appeal or that this particular defendant had reasonably demonstrated that he was interested in appealing.
Illinois Supreme Court, April 17, 2008
People v. Carpenter, No. 103616, 103856, 103857cons.
In consolidated cases arising from instances where defendants had vehicle air bag compartments which contained something other than air bags and one was subsequently convicted of the felony offense of having a false or secret compartment in the motor vehicle, the statute is held unconstitutional as violative of substantiative due process guarantees where it fails to survive the rational basis test that a statute must employ reasonable means to reach a desired objective.
Illinois Supreme Court, April 17, 2008
People v. Houston, No. 102225
Conviction for armed robbery is affirmed where the defect of not recording the voir dire could not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because the defendant could not establish discriminatory jury selection in violation of Batson v. Kentucky.
California Appellate Districts, April 15, 2008
In re Viray , No. D050934
In a case wherein the governor of California reversed a parole board's decision to grant a prisoner's release on parole on the grounds that his release would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety, prisoner's petition for habeas relief is granted where there was no evidence to support the governor's conclusion that he was currently unsuitable for parole.
California Appellate Districts, April 15, 2008
People v. Bragg, No. C053173
Conviction and sentence for attempted murder and possession of a firearm by a felon is affirmed over claims that the trial court erred: 1) in its instructions to the jury on the concurrent intent ("kill zone") theory of liability for the attempted murder charges; 2) by failing to instruct the jury on the offense of assault with a firearm as a lesser included offense of attempted murder committed by the intentional and personal discharge of a firearm; 3) by giving the jury an instruction relating to the street gang enhancement that allowed the jury to find the enhancement true "without determining whether the prosecution had proved the 'pattern of criminal gang activity' element of a criminal street gang"; and 4) by imposing multiple sentence enhancements under Penal Code section 186.22. .
California Appellate Districts, April 16, 2008
People v. Dobson , No. F053531
In a case addressing whether the procedures in Anders and Wende are required for an appeal from the denial of outpatient status pursuant to a petition to restore competency, the court of appeals rules that: 1) the reasoning in Conservatorship of Ben C., 40 Cal.4th 529 (2007) was applicable to th underlying case; and 2) an independent review of the record pursuant to Anders/Wende was not required. .
California Appellate Districts, April 17, 2008
People v. Chavez , No. C052924
Grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence is reversed and remanded where: 1) a police officer's observation of a revolver while looking over the fence from the front yard did not violate defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy; and 2) under these circumstances, a warrantless intrusion into defendant's side yard was justified by exigent circumstances.
