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

Title VII Suit Against Boeing, Plus Criminal & Immigration Law Matters

By FindLaw Staff on October 01, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

US v. Pierce, 09-3865, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress, in a conviction of defendant for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine.  In affirming, the court held that the narcotics dog's interior sniffs, as a natural migration from his initial exterior sniffs, did not constitute a search requiring a warrant or probable cause.


US v. Petersen, 08-4793, concerned a challenge to the defendants convictions for possessing more than 500 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute, and for aiding and abetting that possession.  In affirming, the court held that the district court did not err in denying the motions to suppress.  The court also held that there is more than sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for possession with intent to distribute.  Lastly, the court rejectec the defendants' challenges to the district court's jury instructions. 

PA Prison Soc'y v. Cortes, 09-3017, involved plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to a 1997 amendment to Article IV, section 9(a) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that alters the voting procedures employed by the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons to require unanimity in recommending pardons and commutations for life-sentenced prisoners to the Governor.  In reversing the district court's judgment that the constitutional amendment violates the Ex Post Facto Clause for prisoners sentenced to a term of life imprisonment prior to its effective date, the court remanded the matter as, the 1997 amendment presents no viable ex post facto claim because it only concerns a change in the voting procedures employed by the Board of Pardons, a change that does not affect the prisoners' substantial rights and thus one that is "too slight" to bring it within the scope of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Noel v. Boeing Co., 08-3877, involved a plaintiff's employment discrimination claim brought under Title VII.  In affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant The Boeing Company, the court held that the plaintiff filed his failure-to-promote discrimination charge with the EEOC outside of the 300-day period, and a failure to promote claim is not a discrimination-in-compensation charge within the meaning of the Fair Pay Act.

De Leon-Ochoa v. Attorney General, 09-1520, concerned petitioners' petitions for review of the BIA's denial of their applications for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for failure to personally satisfy the statutory requirements of "continuous residence" and "continuous physical presence." In denying the petition, the court held that petitioners are statutorily ineligible for TPS as petitioners have indisputably failed to personally satisfy the "continuous residence" and "continuous physical presence" requirements.  The court also held that substantial evidence supports the IJ and BIA's denial of a petitioner's application for asylum and he has identified no evidence to compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon return to Honduras.

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