Case Summaries
[09/10]
US v. Espinoza-Morales
Defendant's sentence for attempted reentry following deportation is vacated where neither defendant's prior conviction for sexual battery under California Penal Code section 243.4(a) or his conviction for penetration with a foreign object under California Penal Code section 289(a)(1) constituted a crime of violence warranting the U.S.S.G. section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement.
[09/10]
US v. Bennett
Defendant's bank fraud conviction is vacated where, given that the government did not argue that defendant defrauded a financial institution, and that no rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the funds at issue were "owned by, or under the custody or control of" a financial institution in the circumstances presented here, defendant's conviction must be vacated.
[09/10]
US v. Salas-Fernandez
In a conviction of defendant for his participation in an armed robbery of a Loomis-Fargo bank truck, using a firearm and threats of violence, district court's judgment ordering defendant to pay $157,370.83 in restitution to Loomis-Fargo is affirmed as there is no abuse of discretion, let alone any plain error, in the district court's order to pay restitution forthwith.
[09/10]
Wanless v. Shinseki
In an incarcerated veteran's request for full reinstatement of his disability benefits following his transfer from a state-operated prison to a privately owned prison, Board of Veterans' Appeals' and the Veterans Court's denial of the request is affirmed as the Veterans Court properly construed section 5313 to include penal institutions that are privately operated, yet state-contracted.
[09/09]
Vartelas v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen his removal proceedings, the petition is denied where petitioner was not prejudiced by his attorneys' failure to argue that he was nonremovable based on his prior offenses.
[09/09]
US v. Armstrong
Defendants' convictions for engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting mail fraud are affirmed where: 1) the trial court's instructions dispelled any danger that the jury would give weight to the exhibit at issue as substantive evidence or to bolster credibility; 2) certain challenged statements were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted and thus were not hearsay; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the use of a summary witness.
[09/09]
US v. Szymuszkiewicz
In a prosecution of defendant under the Wiretap Act for intentionally intercepting his supervisor's electronic communication, district court's denial of his motion for acquittal is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly rejected defendant's attack on the sufficiency of the evidence as he had both motive and opportunity; and 2) the Wiretap Act's definitions treat the acquisition of emails as an interception.
[09/09]
US v. Miller
Defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm is reversed where the prosecutor improperly vouched for an officer's credibility and there was no curative instruction and no mitigating effect of the government's comments other than restating the proper burden of proof before sending the jury to deliberate.
[09/09]
Drew v. MacEachern
District court's dismissal of defendant's request for habeas relief for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed as defendant's habeas petition is time-barred under section 2244(d)(1)(A) as his initial gatekeeper petition was not pending within the meaning of section 2244(d)(2) as of April 24, 1997 and he is not entitled to equitable tolling.
[09/09]
Correia v. Feeney
In plaintiff's suit against a police sergeant for violating his civil rights by means of false arrest and the use of excessive force, a denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion for a new trial as it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that the verdict was not clearly against the weight of the evidence; 2) the court's reply to the jury's question was not misleading, unduly complicating, or incorrect as a matter of law, nor did it adversely affect plaintiff's substantial rights; and 3) plaintiff cannot establish that any error in allowing a cross examination, or some portion of it, was sufficiently grave to satisfy plain error review.
[09/09]
People v. Laufasa
Conviction of defendant for drug related crimes after he was caught at an international airport concealing about two pounds of methamphetamine is affirmed as defendant's argument, that the trial court lacked authority to impose a condition that he not reenter the country illegally if he is ever deported, is without merit.
[09/09]
Delia v. City of Rialto
In an action by a firefighter against the City of Rialto and the Rialto Fire Department, alleging violations of his constitutional rights arising during a departmental internal affairs investigation, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff's constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to be protected from a warrantless unreasonable compelled search of his home was violated, but this right, under these or similar facts, was not clearly established at the time of this constitutional violation. However, the order is reversed in part where one defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity as a private attorney.
[09/09]
US v. Stadtmauer
Conviction of defendant for conspiracy to defraud the United States and for willfully aiding in the filing of materially false or fraudulent tax returns is affirmed where: 1) the Supreme Court's decision in Cheek v. US does not prohibit a willful blindness instruction that applies to a defendant's knowledge of relevant tax law; 2) any error in admitting a witness's testimony was harmless and thus does not require reversal; 3) defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are rejected; 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert's testimony; and 5) any error in district court's decision to exclude certain exhibits during defense counsel's cross-examination of the government's witnesses did not prejudice defendant.
[09/08]
US v. Diaz-Jimenez
In a prosecution of defendant for being present in the United States illegally, district court's imposition of a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment is reversed and remanded as there was a serious breach of the plea agreement that defendant be recommended a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range of 18 months, and the defendant is also entitled to be resentenced by a different judge.
[09/08]
US v. Gunter
Defendant's conviction for drug related crimes and a 96-month sentence are affirmed where: 1) the district court meaningfully considered defendant's case and mitigation arguments; 2) defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable; and 3) the record flatly contradicts defendant's claim that he did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently plead guilty.
Back to Main
