Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

No Clearly Established Right to Run for Office, Plus Criminal and Securities Issues

By FindLaw Staff on June 30, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Randall v. Scott, No. 09-12862, involved a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim by a terminated law enforcement officer.  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the right to run for office was not clearly established at the time of the complaint.  However, the court reversed in part on the ground that the district court erred in applying a heightened pleading standard to plaintiff's First Amendment claim.

Thompson v. RelationServe Media, Inc., No. 07-13225, involved an action claiming that defendants failed to disclose, before their company went public, that $2,000,000 in stock had been privately offered for sale by unregistered brokers in ten different states.  The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complaint failed to satisfy the standard for pleading scienter.  However, the court vacated the denial of defendant's motion for sanctions, to allow the district court to make findings in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

In US v. Garcia-Cordero, No. 09-10292, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's alien smuggling convictions where, as applied to a defendant smuggling aliens, the "bring and present" requirement of 8 U.S.C. section 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii) did not violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.

In US v. Rothenberg, No. 08-17106, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's sentence for sexual exploitation of a minor and possession of child pornography, holding that there was no clear error in the district court's finding that defendant's chats crossed the line between sexual banter and criminal persuasion, inducement or enticement, and that he engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct justifying application of the enhancements provided for in U.S.S.G. sections 2G 2.2(b)(5) and 4B 1.5(b)(1).

Related Resources

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard