Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In Songer v. Dillon Resources, Inc., No. 09-10803, an action brought by truck drivers who operate commercial trucks against defendants for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the court affirmed summary judgment for defendants and dismissal of plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, holding that the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption applied to bar plaintiffs' claims because: 1) the MCA applies to defendant-staff leasing agency because is a joint employer with the two companies, both of whom are subject to the exemption, and 2) plaintiffs engaged in activities that directly affect operational safety of motor vehicles in transport of property in interstate commerce.
In US v. Bautista-Montelongo, No. 09-41133, the court affirmed defendant's sentence for a drug related offense, holding that the district court properly applied a two-level offense enhancement for defendant's acting as the captain or the pilot of a boat that was carrying a controlled substance as no special skills are required for application of the enhancement, and defendant's driving a boat containing contraband was enough.
US v. Gonzales, No. 09-20555, concerned an appeal challenging an order, imposed upon revocation of defendant's probation, requiring her to immediately pay the balance of a previously imposed fine. The court vacated and remanded where it was unclear whether the district court considered defendant's "financial resources," as required by 18 U.S.C. section 3572(a)(1) & (2), in ordering the immediate payment of that fine.
SmallBizPros, Inc. v. MacDonald, No. 09-50879, involved an appeal arising from the entry of a contempt order against defendant enforcing a settlement agreement with plaintiff. The court vacated and remanded where, although the parties and the district court likely intended for the district court to retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement, a stipulation effectively dismissed the case when it was filed, and thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.