Actualidad
Resumenes Casos Primer Circuito de Boston
18 de Julio de 2007Resumenes Casos Sobre Penal y Procesal Penal del 1er Circuito de Boston desde 1/1/06 al 1/15/07
| Habeas Corpus | |||
04/30/07 | |||
05-2411 | |||
| Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed as to five claims where the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies, but reversed and remanded as to another claim where the petitioner's state appellate brief sufficiently labeled a sufficiency claim as a federal claim so as to satisfy the fair presentation requirement. | |||
04/24/07 | |||
06-1634 | |||
| Conviction and sentence under the Hobbs Act for committing and conspiring to commit robbery are affirmed over defendant's contentions that 1) the district erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on the government's putative loss or destruction of the store's video surveillance tape; 2) the government adduced insufficient evidence on the essential element of the Hobbs Act that the robbery in some way "obstruct[ed], delay[ed] or affect[ed]" interstate commerce; 3) the district erred in imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement for using "physical restraint" during the course of the robbery; and 4) the sentence was unreasonable. | |||
04/18/07 | |||
05-2309 | |||
| Convictions, combined sentence, and forfeiture order for drug conspiracy and possession charges are affirmed over defendant's numerous arguments challenging the indictment, the evidence presented at trial, the calculation of the forfeiture amount, and his sentence. | |||
04/12/07 | |||
05-1784 | |||
| Denial of a petition for habeas corpus is reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings where the district 's decision to deny evidentiary hearings was an abuse of discretion since 1) defendant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were not implausible; 2) closure of jury selection to the public for an entire day without meeting the strict Waller requirements would violate a defendant's right to a public trial; 3) failure to object to such a closure might constitute ineffective assistance of counsel; and 4) denial of a public trial is structural error and prejudice must be assumed. The denial of habeas relief is affirmed on all other points. | |||
04/10/07 | |||
03-1470 | |||
| Convictions on cocaine-related charges are vacated and remanded where the district 's supplemental instructions, which foreclosed the jury from considering the defendant's superior's role in the asserted government entrapment of defendant, were erroneous. | |||
04/10/07 | |||
06-1920 | |||
| Conviction for possession with intent to distribute ecstasy and methamphetamine is affirmed over defendant's arguments that he was entitled to both a Franks hearing on the suppression of the evidence seized during a search and suppression of statements made after he waived his Miranda rights. | |||
04/06/07 | |||
06-1298 | |||
| Conviction for distribution of heroin and cocaine base and possession of the same with intent to distribute is affirmed over defendant's arguments that 1) the district erred in quashing an eve-of-trial subpoena to a witness and limiting a similar subpoena to an FBI agent; and 2) the government read an early discovery order too narrowly and the district judge should have sanctioned the government by suppressing evidence. | |||
| US v. Garcia-Carrasquillo | |||
| 04/03/07 | |||
| 05-1684 | |||
| Convictions on multiple counts of drug and firearm possession are affirmed where the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, but the sentence for another defendant is vacated and remanded where the district did not adequately explain its reasoning behind the sentence given. | |||
04/03/07 | |||
06-1824 | |||
| Conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute are affirmed over defendant's arguments that 1) the should have granted a mistrial based on in- actions of a spectator that were witnessed by jurors; 2) the erred in not severing defendant's trial from his co-defendant or bifurcating the trial so as to isolate the case against him; and 3) the district erroneously relied on the Guidelines applicable to crack cocaine offenses and the sentence was unreasonable. | |||
03/28/07 | |||
05-2746 | |||
| Sentence on drug and money laundering charges is affirmed where the defendant has forfeited any right to contest an earlier waiver of his right to appeal, and no miscarriage of justice will result from the waiver's enforcement. | |||
| Constitutional Law, | |||
03/27/07 | |||
06-1517 | |||
| Conviction for possession of a machine gun is reversed and a verdict for defendant ordered where the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish the necessary mens era requirement. Conviction for possession of a firearm within a school zone is affirmed over defendant's argument that the statute is unconstitutionally void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it fails to specify how to measure the 1000 foot distance from a school that marks the boundary of a school zone. The sentence is remanded for reconsideration in light of the reversal of the first charge. | |||
| Habeas Corpus | |||
| Lopez v. Commonwealth of MA | |||
03/27/07 | |||
06-1663 | |||
| Denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed over petitioner's argument that the prosecution delayed disclosure to petitioner of information helpful to his defense. | |||
03/23/07 | |||
05-2747 | |||
| Conviction and sentence based on guilty plea to conspiracy to commit money laundering criminal forfeiture is affirmed over claims that 1) six-level enhancement, under U.S.S.G. section 2S1.1(b)(1), was based on an erroneous factual finding by the district that defendant knew the laundered funds were intended to promote offenses involving the manufacture, importation, or distribution of controlled substances; and 2) the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. section 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) was applied to him in violation of the sentencing guideline commentary. | |||
| Admiralty, | |||
03/22/07 | |||
05-1144 | |||
| Convictions and sentences for conspiracy and drug offenses while on board a vessel are affirmed over defendants' arguments that 1) the US did not have jurisdiction over the vessel; 2) the improperly allowed evidence into the record; 3) there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions; 4) they were denied the opportunity to choose a defense strategy in advance and participate in a fair trial because the did not rule on the applicability of a duress defense until after the close of all evidence; 5) the miscalculated their sentences; and 6) the district committed Booker error. | |||
03/21/07 | |||
03-1795 | |||
| Conviction and sentence on a charge of misprision of felony pursuant to a plea agreement are affirmed where, even if there were an error in the plea agreement, it was not plain, and defendant did not show that his substantial rights were affected or that entry of the plea undermined the integrity of the proceedings or constituted a miscarriage of justice. | |||
03/21/07 | |||
06-1615 | |||
| Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed where, although the appeals misapplied the relevant law to petitioner's claim, the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that the prosecutor did not issue peremptory challenges on the basis of gender. | |||
, Elections | |||
03/21/07 | |||
06-1883 | |||
| In a criminal case against the former New England Regional Director of the Republican National Committee arising out of an operation on election day 2002 to flood telephone numbers belonging to the Democratic Party and its supporters with hang-up calls, conviction and sentence on charges of telephone harassment are reversed and remanded where a jury instruction inappropriately broadened the scope of the statute with its definition of "intent to harass." The case is remanded to the district for development of the intent issue, since a reasonable jury could have convicted defendant on the evidence unless it found that the statute required an explicit "purpose" of harassment, rather than a mere knowledge that harassment was likely to occur. | |||
| U.S. v. Coloian | |||
| 03/20/07 | |||
| 06-1357 | |||
| After an acquittal on charges of bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery, denial of defendant's motion to expunge his criminal record is vacated and remanded for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction where the district did not have ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate a motion to expunge a criminal record based purely on equitable grounds. | |||
03/08/07 | |||
06-1376 | |||
| Sentence for violation of the Investment Advisers Act and mail and wire fraud is affirmed over defendant's arguments that his sentence was unreasonably high in light of various mitigating circumstances, and that the district erred by 1) placing too much weight on the advisory sentencing guidelines; 2) failing to explain adequately the reasons for the sentence imposed; and 3) taking into account impermissible considerations as part of the sentencing decision. | |||
| , Government Law | |||
03/02/07 | |||
03-2073 | |||
| Conviction and sentence of the former Speaker of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives for extortion, money laundering, and witness tampering are affirmed over defendant's arguments that 1) the trial should have granted his pretrial motions for a change of venue, a continuance, expanded voir dire and additional peremptory challenges; 2) the failure to disclose a conviction earlier was prosecutorial misconduct that denied him the chance to fully impeach the government's main witness; 3) the district should have struck certain testimony on the grounds that the witness lacked personal knowledge; 4) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; 5) the erred in calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range; 6) the erred by sentencing him under a mandatory guidelines scheme; and 7) the government's request for forfeiture was invalid. | |||
02/26/07 | |||
05-2763 | |||
| Sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act is affirmed over defendant's arguments that 1) the district improperly relied upon a state transcript in establishing one of the underlying convictions needed to activate the ACCA; 2) there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant had been convicted of such a predicate offense; and 3) the finding of the predicate offense was made in violation of his constitutional rights because the relevant facts were neither admitted by him nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. | |||
| , Oil & Gas Law, Tax Law | |||
02/16/07 | |||
04-1285 | |||
| Conviction for evading fuel excise taxes is affirmed where, despite the fact that the charged conduct occurred while regulations were in a state of transition, a jury could permissibly find that defendant was liable for the taxes underlying his conviction and that he willfully failed to pay those taxes. | |||
| , Property Law & Real Estate | |||
02/16/07 | |||
05-1553 | |||
| Conviction for wire fraud and conspiracy is affirmed over defendant's arguments that 1) the conspiracy count should have been dismissed as duplicitous; 2) the evidence presented at trial showed separate schemes and thus was insufficient to prove the single charged conspiracy; and 3) spillover in evidence between the two schemes denied defendant a fair trial on the wire fraud charges. | |||
02/16/07 | |||
05-1567 | |||
| Conviction for conspiracy to distribute drugs and possession or use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug conspiracy is affirmed over defendant's arguments that 1) "bad acts" evidence of defendant's drug-related activities was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); 2) the evidence's unfairly prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value; and 3) the district failed to instruct the jury regarding limitations on their use of Rule 404(b) evidence. | |||
02/09/07 | |||
05-1251 | |||
| Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed where the state 's determination that petitioner was not in police custody after admitting to his role in a crime was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law since there was no clearly established federal law on the issue. | |||
02/07/07 | |||
04-2542 | |||
| Conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon is affirmed where 1) there was no plain error in the admission of 911 recordings describing the defendant and stating that he had a gun; and 2) there was no plain error in statements made by the prosecution during closing arguments. Sentence is vacated where the district judge treated the sentencing guidelines as mandatory in a pre-Booker sentencing. | |||
02/05/07 | |||
05-1815 | |||
| Sentence for possession of child pornography is affirmed where the Supreme 's decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), does not require the government to produce expert opinion testimony that a particular pornographic image is of a real, non-virtual child in order to meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence at sentencing. The case also offered no justification for overturning the 's previous decision in US v. Nolan, 818 F.2d 1015 (1st Cir. 1987), that such evidence is not required in order for the government to meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | |||
02/02/07 | |||
05-1761 | |||
| Conviction and sentence for transporting illegal aliens are affirmed over defendant's claims that 1) the district judge's instructions to the jury deprived him of a fair trial; 2) the judge's limitation of his counsel's questions deprived him of his right to effective cross-examination of witnesses; and 3) his sentence was unreasonable. | |||
02/02/07 | |||
06-1683 | |||
| Conviction and sentence for firearms charges is affirmed where 1) evidence obtained during a search of defendant's apartment was properly admitted since the search adhered to the terms of the warrant; 2) statements defendant made to police did not violate his Miranda rights; and 3) the sentencing judge correctly calculated defendant's offense level with an enhancement for a "destructive device." | |||
01/29/07 | |||
05-1377 | |||
| Convictions on multiple charges relating to attempts to impede an investigation into an incidence of police brutality are affirmed over defendants' arguments that 1) the obstruction of justice counts did not include witness tampering; 2) the jury instructions regarding witness tampering were deficient; 3) certain of the counts were duplicative in violation of double jeopardy; 4) it was plain error for the judge to fail to give a cautionary instruction regarding a witness' testimony; and 5) the sentencing judge did not err in calculating a defendant's sentence. | |||
01/26/07 | |||
06-1491 | |||
| Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed where the Massachusetts Appeals 's finding that no constitutional error occurred was not either contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal case law since it correctly determined that a statement by a police officer concerning defendant's post-Miranda silence was not used against him. | |||
01/19/07 | |||
05-1670 | |||
| Conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon is affirmed over defendant's justification of self-defense where, when proof of the justification defense does not negate an element of the charged crime, the burden of proof in connection with that defense rests with the defendant. | |||
01/11/07 | |||
05-1582 | |||
| Denial of motions to withdraw a guilty plea and for new counsel is remanded for an evidentiary hearing where the defendant made a sufficient showing of an actual conflict of interest on the part of his attorney to render his claim colorable and justify further inquiry by the district . | |||
01/11/07 | |||
05-1650 | |||
| Conviction and sentence on drug and weapons charges are affirmed over defendant's arguments that 1) the prosecution improperly engaged in a pattern of misconduct during both cross-examination and closing arguments; 2) there was insufficient evidence to conclude that defendant constructively possessed the firearms; and 3) the district erroneously believed it was constrained by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. | |||
01/10/07 | |||
05-1428 | |||
| Conviction and sentence for two robberies interfering with interstate commerce are affirmed where 1) defendant could not establish a Brady violation as a result of the district 's discovery refusal since he could not show that he was deprived of material, exculpatory evidence; 2) the district conducted his trial in a fair and impartial manner; and 3) the sentence did not violate due process or the ex post facto clause, and defendant did not offer any support for his claim of unreasonableness. | |||
12/28/06 | |||
06-1643 | |||
| A conviction for conspiracy and a substantive drug-trafficking charge is affirmed over meritless challenges to 1) the sufficiency of the evidence underpinning one of the counts of conviction; 2) admission of evidence of discussions about a possible drug sale, which spanned a seven-month period; and 3) weapons and obstruction of justice sentence enhancements. | |||
12/22/06 | |||
04-2076 | |||
| Sentences for theft from an interstate shipment and conspiracy to steal from an interstate shipment are affirmed where 1) Booker does not apply to judicial determinations of the amount of restitution; 2) the prosecution's standing to seek restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act does not depend on a victim's actions; 3) the MVRA authorized restitution in this case; and 4) there was no error in one defendant's term of imprisonment. A term of supervised release is vacated where the maximum period of supervised release for a misdemeanor is one year. | |||
| US v. Simo-Lopez | |||
| 12/22/06 | |||
| 05-2656 | |||
| Sentence for unlawful reentry into the US and unlawful use of false identification is vacated and remanded where a battery conviction considered a felony for enhancement purposes by the sentencing judge was, under Puerto Rico law, actually a misdemeanor. | |||
| |||
12/22/06 |
| ||
05-2826 |
| ||
| Conviction for multiple counts of criminal fraud in connection with a passport application is affirmed where the district properly admitted expert testimony identifying the defendant as someone other than the person listed on the passport application on the basis of fingerprint analysis. |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
12/15/06 |
| ||
06-1224 |
| ||
| Conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base is affirmed where 1) information gained from a wiretap was properly admitted since the wiretap was sufficiently necessary; 2) defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing, since he did not make a preliminary showing that the wiretap affidavit contained knowing or reckless material falsities or omissions; 3) two phone conversations were properly excluded as hearsay; 4) defendant was not entitled to an instruction for a public authority defense since the evidence would not allow a jury to accept it; and 5) sentencing enhancements were proper. |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
12/12/06 |
| ||
05-2632 |
| ||
| After remand for resentencing, sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine is affirmed where 1) the evidence was sufficient to support the calculation of the individualized drug quantity and the determination that a firearm had been involved; 2) the sentencing 's reasoning behind the sentence was sufficiently detailed to comply with 18 U.S.C. section 3553(c); and 3) the difference between defendant's sentence and those of his co-defendants who chose to enter into plea bargain agreements did not constitute an unwarranted sentencing disparity. |
| ||
| |||
| , Government Law |
| ||
12/12/06 |
| ||
06-1489 |
| ||
| Grant of summary judgment denying a Freedom of Information Act request for third party documents filed in connection with the government's investigation and prosecution of plaintiff's business activities is affirmed where the third party had a privacy interest in preventing the revelation of material he provided to the investigation, and no public interest would be served through such revelation because reviewing the documents would tell the public nothing about the actions of the government in the investigation. |
| ||
| |||
12/11/06 |
| ||
06-1679 |
| ||
| Denial of motion for reduction of sentence is summarily affirmed where 1) application of an amendment to the sentencing guidelines would not result in a lower sentence; 2) 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c) only allows a reduction where the Sentencing Commission, not the Supreme , lowers the applicable sentencing range, thus U.S. v. Booker does not apply; and 3) post-judgment rehabilitation provides no basis either for a sentencing reduction in its own right, or for a further downward departure where a section 3582(c) reduction is ordered for some other reason. |
| ||
| |||
12/11/06 |
| ||
06-1843 |
| ||
| Summary judgment for defendants in an 18 U.S.C. section 1983 suit alleging excessive force is affirmed where 1) the District of Maine's local rules concerning summary judgment do not violate the 7th Amendment's guarantee of a right to trial by jury; 2) the totality of the circumstances did not support a finding that a defendant-officer's handcuffing of plaintiff represented a constitutionally proscribed use of excessive force; 3) defendant did not present evidence demonstrating that police force is inadequately trained in how to handcuff disabled suspects; 4) absent evidence of participation or concerted action one officer cannot be held jointly liable under section 1983 for another officer's use of excessive force; 5) defendant-county had an appropriate policy for fingerprinting disabled persons; and 6) plaintiff was not entitled to raise new and unadvertised theories of liability for the first time in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. |
| ||
| |||
12/06/06 |
| ||
06-1192 |
| ||
| Conviction and sentence for fraud on the U.S. District for the District of Massachusetts are affirmed where 1) summaries that are otherwise admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 are not rendered inadmissible because the underlying documents have been admitted, in whole or in part, into evidence; and 2) Booker and its antecedents do not bar judges from finding the facts necessary to impose a restitution order. |
| ||
| |||
| Constitutional Law, |
| ||
| |||
12/01/06 |
| ||
05-1735 |
| ||
| Conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and distribution of crack cocaine are affirmed where the district did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a continuance of his change of plea hearing to explore the possibility of hiring new counsel since the request for new counsel did not have a constitutional dimension. |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
11/29/06 |
| ||
05-1789 |
| ||
| Conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute are affirmed where a police search of a third-party vehicle did not give rise to a due process claim since it did not harm defendant, and where the sentencing judge's error in classifying defendant as a career offender was harmless since defendant was ultimately sentenced within the range of a non-career offender. |
| ||
| |||
11/15/06 |
| ||
05-2758 |
| ||
| Conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon is affirmed where 1) a 1977 conviction for assault with a deadly weapon was considered a felony by Massachusetts, thus it restricted defendant's right to possess firearms and qualified as a predicate offense; 2) misinformation by a state official did not amount to entrapment by estoppel during a federal prosecution; and 3) defendant provided no evidence that concern for his wife's health impaired his ability to make a knowing and voluntary choice on the day of his plea. |
| ||
| |||
| , Immigration Law |
| ||
| |||
11/14/06 |
| ||
05-2374 |
| ||
| Sentence for illegal re-entry following an earlier deportation for an aggravated felony conviction is affirmed where the defendant failed to object to the characterization of his prior conviction, there was no plain error in the sentencing 's addition of an enhancement for a drug trafficking offense, and the sentence was reasonable. |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
11/08/06 |
| ||
05-1826 |
| ||
| Conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess and distribute 500 or more grams of cocaine are affirmed where 1) evidence of a major drug transaction after the charged conspiracy had ended was admissible to prove identity; 2) the disputed evidence was highly probative; 3) defendant never asked for an instruction concerning the jury's ability to draw a "propensity" inference from descriptions of later drug-dealing activity; 4) a special interrogatory on the verdict form posed no risk and had a permissible purpose; and 5) the district correctly calculated the drug amount for sentencing purposes. |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
10/27/06 |
| ||
04-2386 |
| ||
| A conviction for smuggling and possession of illegal drugs is affirmed where the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdicts and the trial properly refused to allow extrinsic evidence on a collateral matter. |
| ||
| |||
| Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, , Government Law, Injury And Tort Law |
| ||
| |||
10/27/06 |
| ||
06-1627 |
| ||
| In a suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 asserting excessive force and conspiracy claims, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where 1) the conspiracy claim was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim; 2) it was unclear whether the decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), barred plaintiff's excessive force claim; and 3) at any rate, under the circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion in a finding that plaintiff was judicially estopped from asserting facts inconsistent with the facts to which he agreed during a plea colloquy. |
| ||
| |||
| Constitutional Law, |
| ||
| |||
10/25/06 |
| ||
04-1409 |
| ||
| Sentence for carjacking is vacated and remanded where 1) the district erred in imposing two conditions on defendant for the first time in its written judgment, in violation of the defendant's right to be present at sentencing; and 2) the abused its discretion by delegating to the probation officer the authority to determine the number of drug tests defendant must undergo while on supervised release. |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
10/20/06 |
| ||
05-2270 |
| ||
| Conviction and sentence for sexual abuse of an unconscious woman on a commercial airline flight is affirmed where 1) the 's instruction to the jury concerning the element of penetration was sufficient; 2) the admission of the victim's out-of- statements to a state trooper was proper as a prior consistent statement to rebut a charge of recent fabrication; 3) it was clear from the record that the sentencing judge regarded the sentencing guidelines in the proper light; and 4) the sentence was reasonable. |
| ||
| |||
10/18/06 |
| ||
05-2272 |
| ||
| Denial of habeas corpus is affirmed over defendant's arguments that 1) the exclusion of certain defense witness testimony concerning a recanted prior statement violated his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense; and 2) the state prosecutor violated the rule that a prosecutor may not impeach his own witness as a ploy for the introduction of inadmissible evidence, and that this violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
10/13/06 |
| ||
05-1184 |
| ||
| Convictions on drug distribution charges are affirmed over defendants' arguments concerning jury instructions, jury selection, the special verdict form and insufficiency of evidence. In addition, one defendant's sentence is affirmed, but the other's reversed and remanded for resentencing where the judge failed to make an individualized finding as to drug amounts attributable to, or foreseeable by, that defendant. |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| U.S. v. Malouf |
| ||
| 10/13/06 |
| ||
| 05-2245 |
| ||
| Sentence for drug charges is reversed where the district erroneously held that a fact that triggers a mandatory minimum sentence must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
09/28/06 |
| ||
05-2703 |
| ||
| Conviction for possession of a firearm by a person who has been committed to a mental institution is affirmed over defendant's arguments that he was not "committed" to a mental institution, and that the 's instructions concerning possession were erroneous. |
| ||
| |||
| Administrative Law, , Immigration Law |
| ||
| |||
09/22/06 |
| ||
05-2157 |
| ||
| Petition for review of denial of motion to reopen removal proceedings is affirmed where the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act section 440(d) applies to petitioner's application for a waiver of removal such that a prior conviction for attempted trafficking of a controlled substance bars petitioner from any removal relief. |
| ||
| |||
| Constitutional Law, |
| ||
| |||
09/20/06 |
| ||
05-2077 |
| ||
| Convictions on drug and firearms charges are affirmed over defendant's argument that a reasonable suspicion based on a plausible but mistaken view of the facts does not justify a Terry stop, and defendant's challenges to the district 's regulation of cross-examination and its sentencing protocol. |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
09/20/06 |
| ||
06-2230 |
| ||
| Petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the recusal of the presiding district judge in a trial for conspiracy, fraud, and extortion is denied where the petitioner's entitlement to the requested relief was not clear enough to justify mandamus review, thus the issue should be raised on an appeal from final judgment. |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
09/19/06 |
| ||
05-1702 |
| ||
| Conviction for carjacking is affirmed despite the fact that the district judge committed plain error by determining that the defendant had raped the victim during sentencing rather than submitting the issue to a jury where the defendant did not show a reasonable probability that but for the error, the outcome would have been different. |
| ||
| |||
| Asset Forfeiture, Banking Law, , Property Law & Real Estate |
| ||