Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
Family Law
Criminal Law & Procedure
[08/27]
US v. Allen
A conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and a felon in possession of ammunition is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred in permitting two witnesses to be improperly impeached; and 2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.
[08/27]
US v. Hogan
A conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute meth, possession with intent to distribute meth, and distribution of meth, is affirmed over claims that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress and for acquittal, and in sentencing him to 188 months' imprisonment.
[08/27]
US v. Espinosa
A sentence for drug- and firearm-related offenses is affirmed over defendant's claim that the district court erred when, for purposes of determining the advisory sentencing range, it grouped only conspiracy and manufacturing counts, but not firearms counts.
[08/27]
US v. Wessels
In a case wherein defendant was convicted and sentenced for unauthorized use of a credit card, and later had her supervised release revoked and was sentenced again, the judgment is affirmed over a Fifth Amendment due process challenge.
[08/27]
US v. Azure
Revocation of defendant's supervised release and imposition of a 24-month sentence are affirmed over claims that the judgment of the district court should be vacated and the case remanded because: 1) the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to conduct the revocation hearing; 2) the district court failed to undertake the requisite de novo review of the entire record; 3) defendant was not present at the time the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and sentenced him; and 4) his sentence was unconstitutionally imposed to punish him for the offense underlying his revocation, rather than for his original offense.
[08/27]
US v. Wright
A conviction and sentence for aggravated sexual abuse of a child is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) subject matter jurisdiction; 2) the sufficiency of the evidence on an attempted aggravated sexual assault conviction; 3) constructive amendment to the indictment; 4) Jencks Act violation; 5) erroneous admission of hearsay evidence; 6) erroneous admission of leading questions; and 7) sentencing issues.
[08/27]
US v. Yelaun
Conviction and sentence for federal fraud related offenses committed during a scheme to collect insurance payments for medical tests is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) certain trial testimony was admitted in error; 2) there was a variance between the indictment's count 43, which charged defendant with conspiracy to commit money laundering, and the proof at trial; and 3) the judged erred in calculating defendant's sentence according to two sentence enhancements.
[08/27]
US v. Sanchez-Badillo
Convictions and sentences for conspiring to distribute heroin, cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana are affirmed over claims of error that: 1) jury's conspiracy verdict was not supported by evidence; 2) trial court made sentencing errors; 3) evidence was insufficient to support jury's verdict against one of the defendants on weapons charges and prosecutorial misconduct entitles him to a new trial; and 4) trial judge made impermissible comments in the jury's presence and defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel.
More...
Family Law
[08/22]
In re A.C.
Order terminating parental rights is affirmed where: 1) the dependency court's noncompliance with section 372 standing alone does not violate the parent's due process rights; and 2) the error is subject to a harmless error standard.
[08/22]
Iglesias v. Mukasey
Petition for review of BIA's denial of motion to reopen the case is denied where: 1) petitioner's allegation that BIA had ignored evidence put forth by petitioner regarding his marriage to an American citizen was an allegation of legal error subject to appellate review; but 2) petitioner did not provide clear and convincing evidence that his marriage was bona fide.
[08/21]
Combs v. Homer-Center Sch. Dist.
In a suit by parents who home-school their children seeking declaratory relief and a permanent injunction to prohibit the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from requiring plaintiffs to comply with reporting and review requirements, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the challenged statute was a neutral law of general applicability, subject to rational basis review, and was constitutional as it rationally furthered legitimate state interests; 2) plaintiffs did not assert a valid "hybrid-rights" claim under which, as a potential violation of both free-exercise rights and the parental right to direct a child's education, the law might be subject to greater scrutiny; 3) plaintiffs' claims did not fall under the narrow exception of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), requiring heightened scrutiny when parents challenge compulsory-education laws on religious grounds; and 4) having disposed of all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under the Religious Freedom Protection Act.
[08/21]
US v. Carson
Sentence for conspiring to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of unlawful sexual activity and interstate travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct is affirmed where, for purposes of applying a sentencing enhancement, the minor victim was properly determined to be in defendant's custody, care, or supervisorial control, despite argument that the victim's mother's presence gave her sole custody and control.
[08/20]
In re Adrianna P.
Order granting reunification services to presumed father is remanded with orders to vacate where: 1) the record made clear that providing reunification services to father would be detrimental to the child; and 2) the court abused its discretion when it ordered agency to provide reunification services to father. Order directing agency to provide reunification services to other presumed father is affirmed where: 1) despite court's erroneous legal conclusion regarding section 361.5, the court did not abuse its discretion with this order; and 2) there was sufficient evidence to support the court's implied finding that reunification was in the children's best interests.
[08/19]
In re Aaron D.
Termination of mother's parental rights to her two children is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over this case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) because Texas had jurisdiction over custody determinations involving the children and the California juvenile court did not contact the Texas court to resolve jurisdiction; 2) mother did not receive proper notice of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 selection and implementation hearing; and 3) the court erred in finding the children adoptable because of their special developmental needs, physical ailments, and psychosocial issues.
[08/19]
In re David H.
Minor's removal from his mother's home is affirmed where there was substantial evidence that, at the time of a July 2007 hearing, the child faced a substantial risk of serious physical harm from mother because there was a substantial risk that mother would resort to physical violence in disciplining him.
[08/14]
Lemons v. Bradbury
In an action brought by voters who signed a referendum, which sought a statewide vote on a legislative act establishing same-sex domestic partnerships, challenging the Oregon Secretary of State's procedures for verifying referendum petition signatures, denial of permanent injunctive relief for plaintiffs is affirmed where the Secretary's procedures for verifying sampled referendum petition signatures did not violate plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights.
More...
|
