Case Summaries
Asset Forfeiture
[10/30]
US v. Levesque
A forfeiture order for $3,068,000 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, is vacated and remanded where: 1) 21 U.S.C. section 853 authorizes money judgments; 2) the case is remanded to give district court the opportunity to consider whether and to what extent the ruling in the recent Supreme Court case, US v. Santos, 128 S. Ct. 2020 (2008), affects the forfeiture determination in this case; and 3) the case is remanded for lower court to consider whether the imposition of the forfeiture violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment in light of recent pertinent case law.
[10/20]
US v. One Star Class Sloop Sailboat Built in 1930 with Hull Number 721
Following a decision finding that the government failed to take reasonable steps to notify a part-owner of a vessel of its intent to forfeit, the damage award of a share of net sales and attorneys' fees is affirmed as modified where the district court erred only in using an impermissible factor to justify an across-the-board disallowance of two-thirds of the time that one attorney claimed to have spent in litigating the default judgment.
[09/26]
Chichakli v. Szubin
In an action challenging a "Blocking Notice" issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) exigent circumstances justified the holding of a post-deprivation hearing after plaintiff's assets were frozen; 2) OFAC's determination that plaintiff was subject to a presidential order freezing his assets was neither arbitrary nor capricious; but 3) jurisdiction over plaintiff's taking claim was held exclusively by the Court of Federal Claims.
More...
Criminal Law & Procedure
[11/19]
US v. Brown
Sentence of 144 months for possession of crack and powder cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction is affirmed and remanded where: 1) the district court properly exercised its discretion to impose a sentence without a presentence report under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1)(A)(ii) and U.S.S.G. section 6A1.1(a)(2); however 2) the case is remanded for reconsideration of defendant's sentence in light of the 2007 Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, which apply retroactively to defendant's case.
[11/19]
Thompkins v. Berghuis
In a conviction for first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and several firearms-related charges, denial of writ of habeas corpus is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) petitioner did not waive his Fifth Amendment rights when he sat in silence for nearly three hours in response to questioning and repeated invitations to tell his side of the story; 2) the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law, namely Miranda v. Arizona and North Carolina v. Butler; and 3) petitioner's claim of prosecutorial misconduct lacked merit because although an error occurred, the parties responsible for that error were petitioner's attorney and the trial judge, not the prosecutor.
[11/19]
US v. Jones
In a per curiam decision, judgment denying defendant relief under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) is affirmed where: 1) the Sentencing Commission had not lowered the sentencing range applicable to defendant; and 2) the district court correctly ruled that it lacked authority to reduce defendant's sentence under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2).
More...
Sentencing
[11/19]
US v. Brown
Sentence of 144 months for possession of crack and powder cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction is affirmed and remanded where: 1) the district court properly exercised its discretion to impose a sentence without a presentence report under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1)(A)(ii) and U.S.S.G. section 6A1.1(a)(2); however 2) the case is remanded for reconsideration of defendant's sentence in light of the 2007 Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, which apply retroactively to defendant's case.
[11/19]
US v. Jones
In a per curiam decision, judgment denying defendant relief under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) is affirmed where: 1) the Sentencing Commission had not lowered the sentencing range applicable to defendant; and 2) the district court correctly ruled that it lacked authority to reduce defendant's sentence under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2).
[11/18]
People v. McFearson
Sentence of determinate prison term of 14 years 4 months and a consecutive indeterminate prison term of 25 years to life for conviction of various crimes arising from two shootings is vacated and remanded for resentencing where, based on Supreme Court precedent, the trial court erred because it used a fact that resulted in an enhancement of defendant's sentence to impose an aggravated sentence.
More...
|
