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

Dismissal of Petition for Review of EPA Wetland Designation, and Civil Rights and Criminal Matters

By FindLaw Staff on September 23, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In Lopez v. Candaele, No. 09-56238, a student's First Amendment challenge to a community college sexual harassment policy, the court reversed a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff, where the student failed to make a clear showing that his intended speech on religious topics gave rise to a specific and credible threat of adverse action from college officials under the college's sexual harassment policy.

In Powell's Books, Inc. v. Kroger, No. 09-35153, a First Amendment challenge to Oregon statutes criminalizing providing minors under the age of eighteen with visual, verbal, or narrative descriptions of sexual conduct for the purpose of sexually arousing the minor or the furnisher, or inducing the minor to engage in sexual conduct, the court reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction for plaintiffs, where the statutes on their face reached a significant amount of material that was not obscene as to minors, the statutes were unconstitutionally overbroad.

In Souliotes v. Evans, No. 08-15943, a habeas petition brought by a petitioner serving a life sentence for three murders by arson that he claimed he did not commit, the court reversed the dismissal of the petition as untimely, where 28 U.S.C. section 2244(d)(1)(D) did not require that petitioners exercise the maximum diligence possible in uncovering the factual bases of their claims, but only "due" or "reasonable" diligence.

In US v. Begay, No. 09-10249, the court affirmed the denial of defendants' motions to dismiss their indictments for failing to update their sex offender registration information under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) when they moved to a different Arizona address within the territory of the Navajo Nation, where 1) SORNA required defendants to update their registration with Arizona, and because nothing prevented them from doing so, no uncontrollable circumstances prevented them from complying with SORNA; and 2) this application of SORNA violated neither the Due Process Clause nor the Ex Post Facto Clause.

In US v. Bohn, No. 09-30397, the court affirmed defendant's convictions for failure to wear a motorcycle helmet while riding on a federal road in a national park, and for refusing to obey a lawful order, where, pursuant to its powers under the Property Clause, the federal government may enforce the regulations at issue on land over which it has merely proprietary jurisdiction.

In Sackett v. EPA, No. 08-35854, an action seeking review of an EPA compliance order alleging that a land parcel was a wetland subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA) and that the plaintiffs violated the CWA by filling in their property without first obtaining a permit, the court affirmed the dismissal of the action where the CWA precluded pre-enforcement judicial review of administrative compliance orders, and such preclusion did not violate due process.

In US v. Moreland, No. 08-30541, the court affirmed in part defendant's conviction and sentence for mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and money laundering, where 1) at no point did the district court lead defendant to believe that he would receive substantial assistance with his case from standby counsel; and 2) even though the prosecution's questioning was improper, it did not amount to plain error.  However, the court vacated in part where, because the jury instructions for certain counts should have defined proceeds as profits, those instructions were erroneous.

In US v. Morsette, No. 09-30373, the court affirmed defendant's assault conviction where the model jury instruction given by the district court already covered defendant's theory of self-defense in his home, and nothing in the Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment jurisprudence changed the analysis.

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