Case Summaries

Immigration Law

[06/25] Dale v. Holder
In a petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding petitioner's order of removal under 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(F) for being convicted of an aggravated felony, the petition is granted where: 1) although the argument petitioner presented to the BIA was not identical to that which he raised in his petition for review, the arguments were sufficiently related to establish that he presented his ground for relief to the administrative agency in the first instance; and 2) the BIA erred as a matter of law in concluding that petitioner could not legally plead guilty to an attempted violation of N.Y. Penal Law 120.10(3) or (4).

[06/25] US v. Buzo-Zepeda
Defendant's sentence for reentry into the U.S. following deportation is affirmed where a "Johnson waiver" in California state court had no effect on the determination of whether a defendant qualifies for a point increase under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual section 4A1.1, Criminal History Category.

[06/25] Diaz-Garcia v. Holder
A Colombian citizen's petition for review of a decision denying his applications for asylum and related relief is denied as the IJ's negative credibility assessment regarding petitioner's allegations that he was threatened by the FARC Guerrillas was amply supported by a specific and cogent explanation based on substantial evidence.

[06/22] Almaraz v. Holder
In a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of petitioner's motion to reopen and remand, the petition is denied where the adoption of an international trade agreement did not amount to changed country conditions that resurrected his late-filed motion.

[06/22] Ramirez v. Holder
Mexican citizens' petition for review of a decision dismissing their appeal of an IJ's denial of the husband's application for adjustment of status is denied as, under a Chevron analysis, the BIA's interpretation of sections 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) and 1255(i) must be given deference, and thus, because petitioner is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), he cannot adjust his status under section 1255(i).

[06/21] US v. Velasquez-Torres
Defendant's sentence for illegal reentry by a deported alien is affirmed where, having admitted the fact of his deportation as stated in the presentence report, defendant could not argue that the district court improperly relied on that deportation.

[06/21] Larios v. Holder
A Guatemalan native's petition for review of a decision denying his application for asylum and related relief is denied as the IJ's decision to deny petitioner's asylum claim was well-reasoned and supported by substantial evidence and controlling precedent.

[06/21] Cruz-Samayoa v. Holder
Guatemalan natives' petition for review of a decision denying their applications for asylum and related relief is denied where: 1) the father is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal as the BIA's conclusion that petitioner is not a "refugee" within the meaning of the INA is supported by substantial evidence; and 2) petitioner's two adult children have failed to show that they cannot reasonably and safely relocate within Guatemala to avoid potential harm.

[06/18] Aponte v. Holder
A citizen of the Dominican Republic's petition for review of a decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings is granted as the BIA abused its discretion by issuing an inadequately reasoned decision denying petitioner's motion to reopen.

[06/17] Xia v. U.S. Atty. Gen.
In a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the denial, by an Immigration Judge (IJ), of petitioner's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and ordering her removal, the petition is denied where the totality of the record provided ample support for the IJ's specifically stated finding that petitioner's testimony regarding the critical events at issue was not credible.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[06/28] McDonald v. City of Chicago
In an action against the City of Chicago alleging that the City's handgun ban left plaintiffs vulnerable to criminals, judgment for defendants is reversed where the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

[06/25] Dale v. Holder
In a petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding petitioner's order of removal under 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(F) for being convicted of an aggravated felony, the petition is granted where: 1) although the argument petitioner presented to the BIA was not identical to that which he raised in his petition for review, the arguments were sufficiently related to establish that he presented his ground for relief to the administrative agency in the first instance; and 2) the BIA erred as a matter of law in concluding that petitioner could not legally plead guilty to an attempted violation of N.Y. Penal Law 120.10(3) or (4).

[06/25] Bailey v. Cain
In a murder prosecution, petitioner's appeal of the denial of his habeas petition is dismissed and the denial of petitioner's Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 motion is affirmed where: 1) omitted from petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability was a specific reference to the judgment or order from which appeal was taken; and 2) petitioner made no attempt to show that he could not have obtained a transcription sooner if it were necessary to make his case before the district court.

[06/25] Woodfox v. Cain
In the state's appeal from a grant of petitioner's habeas petition in a murder prosecution, the order is reversed where: 1) petitioner failed to exhaust his Confrontation Clause claim in state court; 2) there was no indication in the state court adjudication that suggested a reliance on any procedural vehicle rather than the merits to deny relief; 3) it was not unreasonable to conclude that defense counsel did not render constitutionally deficient performance by failing to pursue a confrontation objection; and 4) the absence of a fingerprint expert did not cause petitioner prejudice that warrants habeas relief.

[06/25] US v. Williams
In a case involving a defendant's transport of 74 unlawful aliens, and the death of 19 of them after he left the aliens locked in the trailer of his tractor?trailer without activating the trailer's air conditioning unit, defendant's murder convictions are affirmed where: 1) the Government's articulated reasons for striking a veniremember were supported by the voir dire transcripts; and 2) it was not clear error for the district court to include defendant's first trip, during which he transported approximately 60 unlawful aliens, as part of the relevant conduct. However, his sentence is vacated where the district court erred in its definition of "act of violence" under the Federal Death Penalty Act and, under the correct definition, the evidence at trial cannot support a finding that the requisite threshold intent was met.

[06/25] People v. Bloom
Conviction of defendant for resisting arrest and other related charges, arising from making more than 40 harassing calls to 911 in a single evening, is affirmed over a challenge to a denial of a motion to suppress as a dispatcher lawfully arrested defendant for making the calls and she was not required to physically restrain him or to be present at the time of the arrest.

[06/25] US v. Womack
In a prosecution of defendant for distributing cocaine base, district court's application of a career offender enhancement when imposing a sentence of 360 months is vacated and remanded as, although the district court did not err by applying the career offender enhancement in defendant's guidelines calculation and the sentence imposed was within a correctly calculated guidelines range, the district court erred in stating that it could not consider the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses under the guidelines because district courts may disagree with the career offender enhancement on policy grounds related to the crack/powder disparity and impose sentences accordingly.

[06/25] US v. Alexander
Defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm is affirmed where: 1) a conviction under Fla. Stat. section 790.15(2) involved conduct that was "similar in kind and degree of risk posed" to burglary, arson, extortion, and crimes involving the use of explosives -- the crimes enumerated in the Guidelines' definition of crime of violence; and 2) the district court did not have authority to award credit for time served in state custody.

[06/25] US v. Huff
Defendant's convictions and sentences for bribery and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bribery are affirmed in part where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to establish a single conspiracy in this case, and there was no material variance between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial; and 2) the district court did not err in basing the loss amount on defendant's substantive counts of conviction only. However, a restitution order is vacated in part where the circuit court was unable to determine whether the amount of restitution imposed by the district court exceeded the victims' actual losses.

[06/24] People v. Int'l Fid. Ins., Co.
In a prosecution of defendant for attempted murder and other crimes, trial court's denial of a motion to vacate a forfeiture and exonerate bail is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in denying the motion as, although defendant was subject to a greater potential maximum penalty under the first amended information than he had been under the original complaint, the charges in the first amended information were based on the same acts alleged in the complaint; and 2) the certificate of mailing of the notice of forfeiture which was signed by a deputy clerk on behalf of the clerk of the court was properly executed.

More...

Family Law

[06/24] Doe v. Reed
In a First Amendment case arising out of a state law extending certain benefits to same-sex couples, involving a challenge to the Washington Public Records Act based on its provision permitting the disclosure of referendum petition signers' names and addresses, the Ninth Circuit's reversal of the district court's preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed where disclosure of referendum petitions does not as a general matter violate the First Amendment.

[06/23] In re Marriage of Hartman
Trial court's denial of wife's motion to vacate an order restraining her from interfering with ex-husband's child custody time is affirmed as the restraining order is neither ambiguous nor overbroad.

[06/22] In re Kyle E.
In juvenile dependency proceedings, the juvenile court's visitation order is reversed and remanded as it unlawfully delegated the responsibility of whether or not the father's visitation would occur at all to the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services.

[06/18] Elliot v. Carcieri
In a class action lawsuit on behalf of foster care children who are under the legal custody of Rhode Island's Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), claiming that systematic deficiencies in the state's child welfare and foster care systems deprived the plaintiffs of their rights under the U.S. Constitution and several federal statutes, district court's judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the Next Friends lacked capacity to sue on behalf of plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in finding that the state appointed guardians ad litem or CASA advocates precluded plaintiffs from filing suit by a Next Friend; 2) under the circumstances of the case, Rule 17(c) allows federal courts discretion to appoint a Next Friend to represent the children in federal court; and 3) the proposed Next Friends are suited to represent the children in this case.

[06/17] Estate of Charania v. Shulman
In a tax deficiency case, the judgment of the tax court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the tax court's judgment that all of the Citigroup shares were the separate property of the decedent for federal estate tax purposes and, thus, were includable in his gross taxable estate is affirmed, as the rule of De Nicols is that a change in marital domicile does not, in itself, effect a change in the marital property regime governing the spouses' rights in personal property acquired throughout the course of the marriage; but 2) the tax court's approbation of the late-filing penalty was in error and is therefore reversed.

[06/15] In re D.R.
In the County Social Services Agency's appeal from a juvenile court's order denying the agency's motion to terminate the de facto parent status of respondent, and granting the application of respondent's partner for de facto parent status, the order is affirmed where: 1) the juvenile court had the authority to determine that respondent's conduct constituted serious physical abuse, but conclude that the single incident of misconduct found to have occurred did not rise to the level warranting termination of his de facto parent status; and 2) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to terminate respondent's de facto parent status.

[06/15] US v. Novak
A conviction under 18 U.S.C. section 228(a)(3) for willfully failing to pay child support is affirmed over two challenges to the district court's jury instructions on venue where: 1) the district court did not err when it defined "resided" as "the act or fact of living in a given place permanently or for an extended period of time," and the evidence was sufficient, for purposes of venue, to establish that defendant resided in the Eastern District of Virginia during the time period alleged in the indictment; and 2) even assuming the district court's instruction was erroneous, defendant could not show any harm.

[06/10] Fields v. Fields
In a divorce action, the appellate division's order affirming the trial court's equitable distribution order is affirmed where the husband's one-half interest in the parties' residence -- a Manhattan townhouse that the husband purchased during the marriage and where the parties had lived for nearly thirty years -- was marital property.

[06/10] G.R. v. Intelligator
In an attorney's special motion to strike plaintiff's complaint, arising from her representation of plaintiff's ex-wife in postmarital dissolution proceedings, trial court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) attorney's filing a copy of plaintiff's credit report in support of a motion was protected petitioning activity; 2) plaintiff failed to meet his burden of demonstrating probability of success on his claims; and 3) plaintiff failed to show either that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the attorney fees and costs or that it erred in denying his motion for reconsideration.

[06/09] In re Marriage of Jill & Victor D.
Juvenile court's judgment terminating a father's parental rights so the minors could be adopted by their stepfather is affirmed where: 1) the court properly held that the circumstances by which the minors' mother initially assumed sole physical custody of them was irrelevant to the determination whether the father left the minors within the meaning of the statutory scheme; and 2) the father's claim that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that he left the minors for one year with the intent to abandon them during that time is rejected.

More...