Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

(U.S.S.C., Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Government Law) In a constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. section 2339B(a)(1), which prohibited knowingly providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of partial judgment for plaintiffs is reversed in part where the material support statute was constitutional as applied to the particular forms of support that plaintiffs sought to provide to foreign terrorist organizations.

US v. Jackson

(U.S. 1st Cir., Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence) Denial of a motion to suppress in a prosecution for being a felon in possession of a firearm is affirmed as the district court's judgment was neither unreasonable nor clear error as, under the applicable test, the lack of any pre-planned evasion of Miranda defeats defendant's claim, and under the plurality decision's fact sensitive approach, the most egregious elements of Seibert are absent.

Bryan v. MacPherson

(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Government Law) In an action asserting excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment based on an officer's use of a taser on plaintiff, a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed in part where, viewing the circumstances in the light most favorable to plaintiff, defendant's use of the taser was unconstitutionally excessive. However, the order is reversed in part where the violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights was not clearly established at the time.

US v. Crooker

(U.S. 1st Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Conviction of defendant for transporting a firearm in interstate commerce as a convicted felon and sentence to 262 months' imprisonment is reversed and remanded for the entry of judgment of acquittal as, on the facts of this case, a silencer cannot qualify as a "firearm" within the meaning of the statutory definition.

Hill v. Schofield

(U.S. 11th Cir., Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Habeas Corpus, Health Law, Sentencing) In a capital habeas matter, the denial of petitioner's habeas petition is reversed where Georgia's requirement of proof of mental retardation beyond a reasonable doubt necessarily would result in the execution of the mentally retarded, and thus the Georgia Supreme Court's decision was contrary to the clearly established rule of Atkins.

Obaydullah v. Obama

(U.S. D.C. Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Military Law) In a habeas petition challenging the lawfulness of petitioner's detention at the Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the district court's order staying the petition is reversed where the prolonged delay in adjudicating petitioner's petition was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's teaching in Boumediene v. Bush that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay was entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.

US v. Heras

(U.S. 2d Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure) In the government's appeal from the district court's grant of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on charges of conspiracy to possess and aiding and abetting an attempt to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, the order is reversed where the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to infer from defendant's knowledge that a co-conspirator was a drug dealer seeking to take possession of a quantity of drugs, and defendant's knowing effort to further and facilitate that possession, that defendant necessarily adopted the specific intent underlying the attempted possession, namely, distribution of any acquired drugs.

US v. Celis

(U.S. D.C. Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence) Defendants' convictions for conspiring to import cocaine and to manufacture and distribute cocaine for import into the United States are affirmed where, in issuing and managing a protective order, the district court accommodated the government's law enforcement interests in a manner that did not impermissibly intrude upon appellants' Sixth Amendment rights and did not result in prejudice that would require reversal of their convictions.

Guevara v. Repub. of Peru

(U.S. 11th Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Criminal Law & Procedure, Government Law, International Law) In an action claiming that the Republic of Peru owed plaintiff $5 million in reward money for information that lead to the arrest of Peru's former spy chief, Vladimiro Lenin Montesinos Torres, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where the district court should have recognized Peru's sovereign immunity and therefore dismissed plaintiff's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

US v. 777 Greene Ave.

(U.S. 2d Cir., Asset Forfeiture, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Ethics & Professional Responsibility) In a civil forfeiture proceeding, the motion to withdraw of defendant's counsel is denied where such a motion will not be granted unless counsel satisfies the requirements established under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1976), and its progeny. With regard to motions to withdraw filed by appellate counsel appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 983(b)(2)(A), the procedure established under Anders and its progeny is best suited to protect the right to counsel to which indigent litigants are entitled.

People v. Davis

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) In a prosecution of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm, trial court's order imposing a $30 facilities fee is reversed as the new $30-$35 court facilities fee imposed by Gov. Code section 70353 does not apply to cases in which the defendant's conviction, by plea or jury verdict, was rendered before the January 1, 2009 effective date of the statute.

People v. Eusebio

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Defendant's seven year sentence for forgery conviction is affirmed as an amendment to Penal Code section 4019 concerning conduct credit for county jail inmates is not to be applied retroactively and the prospective application does not violate defendant's right to equal protection under the California Constitution.

Gardner v. Superior Court

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Trial court's denial of defendant's motion for section 987.9 funds on the ground that the district attorney had not announced that he was seeking the death penalty and that until he did, defendant's case was not "presently a capital case" was an error as a "capital case" as used in section 987.9 means one where the defendant faces the possibility of the death penalty, where defendant actually risks death. Therefore, unless the district attorney makes an announcement to the contrary, a defendant charged with murder with special circumstances is exposed to that punishment, and a section 987.9 request must be heard on the merits.

Dillon v. US

(U.S.S.C., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) In defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2), the Third Circuit's affirmance of the denial of the motion is affirmed where Booker's holdings did not apply to section 3582(c)(2) proceedings, and therefore did not require treating U.S.S.G. secton 1B1.10(b) as advisory.

City of Ontario v. Quon

(U.S.S.C., Civil Rights, Communications Law, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure) In an action by police officers against the city employing them, claiming that defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA) by obtaining and reviewing the transcript of plaintiff-officer's pager messages, the Ninth Circuit's reversal of summary judgment for defendants is reversed where, because the city's search of plaintiff's text messages was reasonable, defendants did not violate plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights.