Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
US v. Talamantes, No. 10-1212, involved a prosecution of defendant for unlawful reentry after removal following an aggravated felony conviction. The court affirmed the imposition of a sentence of 77 months' imprisonment, holding that the sentence was not unreasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an increase under Guidelines section 2L1.2(b)(A).
In US v. McGilberry, No. 09-2892, the court affirmed defendant's conspiracy to distribute marijuana, holding that 1) sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana; 2) government proved a single conspiracy as alleged in the indictment; and 3) the court did not err by permitting the government to introduce subsequent propensity evidence under Federal Rule Evidence 404(b).
In Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 09-2031, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's Rule 60(d)(3) motion to vacate an underlying consent judgment involving a series of trademark-related actions stemming from plaintiff's sale of a seafood-products business to defendant, holding that, given the facts, and given the equitable requirement that the party seeking relief be free from negligence and fault, the district court clearly did not abuse its discretion in finding equitable relief inappropriate in this case.
In Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Williams, No. 09-2869, an interpleader action to determine the rights to life insurance proceeds, the court affirmed the district court's grant of decedent's sister's motion for summary judgment, holding that 1) the district court properly admitted the affidavits as, under Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Watson, 207 S.W. 3d 442 (Ark. 2005), a deceased insured's oral statements to several people concerning that insured's future intentions to change the beneficiary in an insurance contract in favor of another are admissible to resolve disputes as to who is the proper beneficiary; and 2) the decedent's sister rebutted the presumption of undue influence with the affidavits in support of her motion for summary judgment.
Campbell v. Davol, Inc., No. 09-3166, involved plaintiff's product liability suit against defendants claiming that a hernia patch that was surgically placed in her abdomen following breast reconstructive surgery was defective. The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants where 1) district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the issue of successor liability; 2) district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the post-sale failure to warn claim as there was no contractual relationship to provide services to customers who purchased the hernia patch from the manufacturer; and 3) there is no err in finding plaintiff's claims against defendant were barred by Texas law.
Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 09-3454, involved plaintiff's suit against Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), to recover damages for back injuries that he allegedly suffered while working as a machinist at defendant's locomotive repair shop. The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant where 1) plaintiff has failed to establish causation, negligence or foreseeability; and 2) the district court properly excluded plaintiff's medical expert's causation opinion for failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2).