In US v. Williams, No. 09-5331, a defendant challenged an order denying his motion to reduce his sentence for possession of with intent to distribute and for being a felon in possession of a firearmThe Sixth Circuit affirmed the ruling as the career offender guidelines, and not crack cocaine guidelines, controlled his original sentence, and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction to resentence defendant under section 3582(c)(2).
Riverview Health Inst. v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, No. 08-4431, involved an action brought by out-of-network providers of health care services against an insurer and its officers raising claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), ERISA, and state law.
Pablo-Sanchez v. Holder, No. 09-3301, involved a Mexican family's petition for review of a BIA decision denying withholding of removal.The circuit court denied the petition finding that the BIA permissibly determined that petitioner-husband did not suffer mistreatment on account of his political opinions (petitioner was a former Green Party candidate for a seat in Mexico's Congress).
In Elgharib v. Napolitano, No. 09-3029, the circuit court was faced with an appeal from a dismissal of a petition for a writ of prohibition challenging an in absentia removal order based on lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. section 1252(a)(5) & (g).
In Premo v. US, No. 09-1426, the circuit court dealt with an appeal in an action brought against the government arising from injuries sustained by plaintiff when she was struck by a USPS postal truck.The district court below had found that, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, Michigan state law (in this case the Michigan No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act) applies to plaintiff's claim for personal injury benefits.
The other ruling the Court handed down today, Wilkins v. Gaddy, No. 08-10914,
involved a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim of excessive force by a
prisoner. The district court had dismissed the complaint and the Fourth
Circuit had affirmed such ruling.
But, as the Court wrote: "In requiring what amounts to a showing of
significant injury in order to state an excessive force claim, the
Fourth Circuit has strayed from the clear holding of this Court in
Hudson. . . .
In one of the appeals decided today, the Second Circuit dealt with an alleged
breach of an indenture.In Law Debenture Trust Co. v. Maverick Tube Corp., No. 08-5668,
plaintiff noteholders in defendant corporation sued for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment based on defendant's refusal to allow
certain noteholders to convert their notes to cash and stock following
the acquisition of defendant. The district court granted summary
judgment to defendant.
Convictions for conspiracy to defraud the IRS are affirmed where: 1)
materiality is an essential element of the charged 18 U.S.C. section
286 offense, but is not required to show a section 287 violation; 2)
despite the fact that the indictment did not use the term material, it
sufficiently alleged facts that warrant an inference of materiality
and 3) the deficiency in the jury instructions as to materiality was
Read US v. Saybolt, No.