United States v. Kerr

Share |
by Justia Inc
Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm after being previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Defendant was sentenced to 268 months' imprisonment after the district court concluded that defendant qualified as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). Because the maximum possible prison sentence that defendant faced for his prior state convictions exceeded on year, and because that potential punishment was far from hypothetical, the court held that defendant's prior state convictions qualified as predicate felonies for sentencing under the ACCA. Therefore, the district court did not err in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to vacate his conviction and dismiss the indictment where defendant had the requisite predicate felony for his section 922(g)(1) conviction. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's contention that his prior appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to challenge his conviction on the basis that he lacked a predicate felony was moot. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Kerr" on Justia Law

United States v. Robertson

Share |
by Justia Inc
Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Surrounded by police officers, defendant watched as every individual in a bus shelter next to him was handled by the police. Soon thereafter, defendant was confronted by a police officer who immediately sought to verify whether defendant was carrying anything illegal before waving him forward. The court concluded, given these facts, that defendant merely obeyed the police officer's orders without giving valid consent to a search. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Robertson" on Justia Law

Sandlands C&D LLC v. Horry County

Share |
by Justia Inc
Sandlands and EDS challenged the validity of Horry County's Flow Control Ordinance. The Ordinance prohibits disposal of waste generated in the county at any site other than a designated publicly owned landfill. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the county, concluding that the Ordinance did not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause because the Ordinance provides the same types of benefits and imposes the same types of burdens as the ordinances upheld in United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority. Further, the Ordinance did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because Sandlands and EDS have failed to show that they have been intentionally treated differently from other similarly situated companies. View "Sandlands C&D LLC v. Horry County" on Justia Law

Dr. Michael Jaffe v. Samsung Electronics Co.

Share |
by Justia Inc
Qimonda, a German corporation that manufactured semiconductor devices, filed for insolvency in Munich, Germany. Plaintiff, the insolvency administratort, filed an application in the United States Bankruptcy Court under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, petitioning the U.S. court to recognize the German insolvency proceeding as a "foreign main proceeding" in order to obtain privileges available under Chapter 15. At issue before the court was how to mediate between the United States' interests in recognizing and cooperating with the foreign insolvency proceeding and its interests in protecting creditors of Qimonda with respect to U.S. assets, as provided by 11 U.S.C. 1521 and 1522. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court properly recognized that plaintiff's request for discretionary relief under section 1521(a) required it to consider the interest of the creditors and other interested parties, including the debtor under section 1522(a) and that it properly construed section 1522(a) as requiring the application of a balancing test. The court also concluded that the bankruptcy court reasonably exercised its discretion in balancing the interest of the licensees against the interests of the debtor and finding that application of 11 U.S.C. 365(n) was necessary to ensure the licensees under Qimonda's U.S. patents were sufficiently protected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Dr. Michael Jaffe v. Samsung Electronics Co." on Justia Law

United States v. Montes-Flores

Share |
by Justia Inc
Defendant was convicted of illegal reentry after being previously removed in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 46 months imprisonment. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, concluding that the district court erroneously applied the modified categorical approach to defendant's prior conviction for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature - an indivisible common law crime. View "United States v. Montes-Flores" on Justia Law

Fontenot v. Taser Int’l, Inc.

Share |
by Justia Inc
Plaintiff filed a products liability action against TI after her son died from cardiac arrest when he was struck by a taser. A jury found in favor of plaintiff, awarding her $10 million in compensatory damages, which the district court remitted to about $6.15 million before deducting certain offset amounts received by plaintiff, resulting in a final award of about $5.5 million. TI appealed. The court held that the district court did not err in entering judgment in favor of plaintiff on the liability aspect of the negligence claim in accordance with the jury's verdict. However, the damages award was not supported by the evidence and the court remanded on that issue. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fontenot v. Taser Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Lin v. Holder, Jr.

Share |
by Justia Inc
Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's order dismissing her appeal from the IJ's order finding her ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ determined that petitioner's testimony was not credible and that she had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that she was the victim of a forced abortion. The BIA agreed with the IJ's decision in all pertinent parts. The court concluded that the agency's finding was supported by substantial evidence and was not manifestly contrary to law. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of petitioner's claim for asylum and for protection under the CAT. Petitioner also failed to meet the more stringent burden of proof required to qualify for withholding of removal. Further, the court concluded that petitioner's argument, that her due process rights were violated by the IJ's decision allowing the government to submit supplemental evidence after the merits hearing, was without merit. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Lin v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

United States v. 515 Granby, LLC

Share |
by Justia Inc
After prevailing against the United States on the issue of just compensation in a condemnation proceeding, Granby and Marathon appeal the district court's denial of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412. The district court concluded that, although the prelitigation position of the United States was admittedly unreasonable, the United States' overall position was substantially justified under the totality of the circumstances. The court vacated and remanded with instructions regarding how to properly weigh the government's prelitigation position in determining whether its position as a whole was substantially justified, and to consider, if necessary, whether special circumstances existed in the first instance. View "United States v. 515 Granby, LLC" on Justia Law

Turner v. United States

Share |
by Justia Inc
Plaintiff filed personal injury and wrongful death claims against the United States and Coast Guard under the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA), 46 U.S.C. 30901-30918. Plaintiff and her husband fell overboard their boat and her husband subsequently died of drowning. The court concluded that the Coast Guard neither increased the danger facing plaintiff and her husband nor induced reliance on the part of either plaintiff, her husband, or a third party. Accordingly, plaintiff could not prove that the Coast Guard breached its duty to her or her deceased husband, and the district court properly entered summary judgment on plaintiff's tort claims. The court also found that the rulings on the issues of spoliation and the timeliness of the motion reflected proper exercises of the district court's discretion and the court affirmed as to these issues. The court also affirmed the district court's ruling that the Coast Guard's response to plaintiff's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, request satisfied its duty under that Act. View "Turner v. United States" on Justia Law

Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Vilsack

Share |
by Justia Inc
Phillip Morris sought review of the USDA's decision regarding the implementation of the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act (FETRA), 7 U.S.C. 518 et seq. Phillip Morris challenged the USDA's decision to use 2003 tax rates instead of current tax rates in calculating how these assessments were to be allocated across manufacturers of different tobacco products. The court concluded that USDA's decision was a permissible interpretation of FETRA; there was no clear indication in the text of the statute, or in Congress's prior or subsequent action, that Congress intended for USDA to take a different course; and there was similarly no basis for concluding that USDA filled that gap with an unreasonable interpretation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of USDA's motion for summary judgment. View "Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Vilsack" on Justia Law