Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/10] US v. Espinoza-Morales
Defendant's sentence for attempted reentry following deportation is vacated where neither defendant's prior conviction for sexual battery under California Penal Code section 243.4(a) or his conviction for penetration with a foreign object under California Penal Code section 289(a)(1) constituted a crime of violence warranting the U.S.S.G. section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement.

[09/10] US v. Bennett
Defendant's bank fraud conviction is vacated where, given that the government did not argue that defendant defrauded a financial institution, and that no rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the funds at issue were "owned by, or under the custody or control of" a financial institution in the circumstances presented here, defendant's conviction must be vacated.

[09/10] US v. Salas-Fernandez
In a conviction of defendant for his participation in an armed robbery of a Loomis-Fargo bank truck, using a firearm and threats of violence, district court's judgment ordering defendant to pay $157,370.83 in restitution to Loomis-Fargo is affirmed as there is no abuse of discretion, let alone any plain error, in the district court's order to pay restitution forthwith.

[09/10] Wanless v. Shinseki
In an incarcerated veteran's request for full reinstatement of his disability benefits following his transfer from a state-operated prison to a privately owned prison, Board of Veterans' Appeals' and the Veterans Court's denial of the request is affirmed as the Veterans Court properly construed section 5313 to include penal institutions that are privately operated, yet state-contracted.

[09/09] Vartelas v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen his removal proceedings, the petition is denied where petitioner was not prejudiced by his attorneys' failure to argue that he was nonremovable based on his prior offenses.

[09/09] US v. Armstrong
Defendants' convictions for engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting mail fraud are affirmed where: 1) the trial court's instructions dispelled any danger that the jury would give weight to the exhibit at issue as substantive evidence or to bolster credibility; 2) certain challenged statements were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted and thus were not hearsay; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the use of a summary witness.

More...