Entries tagged with “enhancements” from Harmfulerror

Via Scoutsblog

United States v. Marcus - reversed and remanded, 7-1, in an opinion by Justice Breyer.  Justice Stevens dissents and Justice Sotomayor took no part in the case.

• Holding: The Court overturns the 2d Circuit's standard on "plain error."

United States v. O'Brien -affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy.  Justice Stevens concurs and Justice Thomas concurs in the judgment only.

• Holding: The fact that a firearm was a machine gun is an element to be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and is not a sentencing factor to be proved to the judge at the time of sentencing.

 Robertson v. United States - writ of cert. dismissed as improvidently granted in a per curiam opinion.  The Chief Justice dissents, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sotomayor.  The issue presented was "whether an action for criminal contempt in a congressionally created court may constitutionally be brought in the name and pursuant to the power of a private person, rather than in the name and pursuant to the power of the United States. 

Hardt v. Reliance Standard Insurance -  reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas.  Justice Stevens concurs in part and in the judgment.  The Court clarified when a worker covered by an employee benefit plan under ERISA is entitled to recover attorney's fees in a lawsuit over benefits.  

Lewis v. City of Chicago - reversed and remanded, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Scalia.

• Holding: A plaintiff who does not file a timely charge challenging the adoption of an employment practice may assert a claim of disparate impact even if the lawsuit is aimed at an application of the practice.

American Needle v. NFL - reversed, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Stevens.

• Holding: The NFL's team joint licensing of the use of trademarks on clothing and other consumer goods may be challenged under the Sherman Antitrust Act's section 1.  

The Court also issued a per curiam decision in Jefferson v. Upton, a capital case:  "Petitioner Lawrence Jefferson, who has been sentenced to death, claimed in both state and federal courts that his lawyers were constitutionally inadequate because they failed to investigate a traumatic head injury that he suffered as a child. The state court rejected that claim after making a finding that the attorneys were advised by anexpert that such investigation was unnecessary. Under the governing federal statute, that factual finding is presumed correct unless any one of eight exceptions applies.See 28 U. S. C. §§2254(d)(1)-(8) (1994 ed.). But the Court of Appeals considered only one of those exceptions (specifically §2254(d)(8)). And on that basis, it considered itself "duty-bound" to accept the state court's finding, and rejected Jefferson's claim. Because the Court of Appeals did not fully consider several remaining potentially applicable exceptions, we vacate its judgment and remand."

Certiorari grants:

Skinner v. Switzer 
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma 
pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. 

Issue: May a convicted prisoner seeking access to biological evidence for DNA testing assert that claim in a civil rights action under 42 USC 1983 or is such a claim cognizable only in a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

Sossamon v. Texas
Issue: Limited by the Court to this question: whether an individual may sue a state or state official in his official capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
Issue: (1) Whether, when Congress has provided that compliance with a federal motor vehicle safety standard "does not exempt a person from liability at common law," 49 U.S.C. § 30103(e), a federal minimum safety standard allowing vehicle manufacturers to install either lap-only or lap/shoulder seatbelts in certain seating positions preempts a state common-law claim alleging that the manufacturer should have installed a lap/shoulder belt in one of those seating positions; (2) whether that same federal motor vehicle safety standard impliedly preempts a state tort suit alleging that the manufacturer should have warned consumers of the known dangers of a lap-only seatbelt installed in one of its vehicles.

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion
Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts states from conditioning the enforcement of an arbitration agreement on the availability of particular procedures -- here, class-wide arbitration -- when those procedures are not necessary to ensure that the parties to the arbitration agreement are able to vindicate their claims.

Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn; Garriott v. Winn

Issues: (1) Whether respondents have taxpayer standing when they cannot allege that the Arizona Tuition Tax Credit involves the expenditure or appropriation of state funds; and (2) whether a tax credit that advances the legislature's legitimate secular purpose of expanding educational options for families unconstitutionally endorses or advances religion simply because taxpayers choose to direct more contributions to religious organizations than nonreligious ones.

Briefs and lower court opinions on the cert. grants are available at the Scotusblog link above.

Huesner (Allen) v. State, Docket No. 52023
Las Vegas- 10:00 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering.

The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that after Allen Heusner had been served with a temporary protective order, he broke into the home he shared with his wife, beat to death the man with whom his wife had been having an intimate relationship, and set a blanket on fire.  Heusner was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree arson, and burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon.  Heusner raises numerous issues on appeal.    ISSUES:  Did the district court err in allowing the State to pursue a theory of felony murder with the predicate felony being burglary based upon entry with an intent to murder?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting prior bad act evidence? Did the district court abuse its discretion when it instructed the jury that it did not have to be unanimous on the theory supporting the first-degree murder conviction? Did the admission of evidence of Heusner's post-arrest silence violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? 

Love (Sherri) v. State, Docket No. 52403
Las Vegas- 10:30 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering

Sherri Love is appealing her conviction for murdering her 7-year-old daughter, attempting to murder her 8-year-old son, and abusing and neglecting her son by killing his sister in front of him and stabbing him in the hand.  This incident occurred in Clark County several days after Love left a detoxification program, where she was being treated for alcoholism and drug addiction.  ISSUES: Did the district court properly instruct the jury?

Polk (Levenral) v. State, Docket No. 52733
Las Vegas- 10:30 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering

This appeal challenges witness testimony, Nevada's deadly weapon enhancement, the district court's ability to dismiss an injured juror prior to consulting with the parties, and whether a juror who lost consciousness during trial should have been dismissed.   Levenral Polk is appealing his second conviction for murdering a long-time friend, by shooting him from a car.  Polk was initially convicted of first-degree murder, but was granted a new trial by a federal court.  At his second trial in Clark County, Polk was convicted of second-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and discharging a firearm out of a motor vehicle. ISSUES: Did the district court improperly permit a witness to offer hearsay evidence about forensic test results when that witness did not perform the forensic testing? Is the deadly weapon enhancement statute unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by dismissing an injured juror prior to consulting the parties?  Did the district court err when it failed to dismiss a juror who lost consciousness during trial?

Mendoza-Lobos v. State -(Majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Hardesty and joined by Justices Saitta, Gibbons and Cherry) -  "In this appeal, we address two issues related to recent amendments to the deadly weapon enhancement statute, NRS 193.165(1), that require the district court to consider enumerated factors and state on the record that it has considered the factors in determining the length of the enhancement sentence.

First, we consider whether these amendments to NRS 193.165(1) violate the separation-of-powers doctrine.  Although we conclude that the amended statute violates the separation-of-powers doctrine to the extent that it requires the courts to state on the record that the enumerated factors have been considered and to make specific findings in that respect, we nonetheless elect to abide by the mandate contained therein because it serves a laudable legislative goal with respect to the length of enhancement sentences and facilitates appellate review. 

Second, we consider whether NRS 193.165(1) requires the district court to make findings on the record before imposing a sentence enhancement for the use of a deadly weapon.  We conclude that it does and that findings must be made for each enhancement.  Applying our holding to the instant case, we conclude that the district court's failure to make the required findings for two of appellant Douglas Mendoza-Lobos' enhancements does not amount to plain error warranting reversal of his conviction and sentence.  Therefore, we affirm the judgment of conviction."

Justices Douglas, Parraguirre and Pickering agree that "the portion of NRS 193.165(1) requiring the district courts to consider certain enumerated factors when imposing a sentence for a deadly weapon enhancement does not run afoul of the separation-of-powers doctrine.  I also agree with the result reached.  However, [they] disagree with [their] colleagues' conclusion that NRS 193.165(1) is ambiguous."

The Court also issued an opinion in a civil case today.  In NC-DSH v. Garner, the Court addresses the impact of an egregious fraud upon the court by attorney Lawrence Davidson.  Without knowledge or approval of his clients, Davidson settled their case for $160,000, forget the necessary settlement papers and disappeared with the money.  The clients obtained an order from the district court vacated a stipulated final judgment under NRCP 60(b).  The hospital defendant appealed.  The Court affirms:  "The district court found that Davidson committed "fraud upon the court," which is not subject to NRCP 60(b)(3)'s six-month limitations period.  Murphy v. Murphy, 103 Nev. 185, 186, 734 P.2d 738, 739 (1987).  Although true fraud on the court is rare and requires "egregious misconduct," Occhiuto v. Occhiuto, 97 Nev. 143, 146 n.2, 625 P.2d 568, 570 n.2 (1981) (quoting United States v. International Telephone & Tel. Corp., 349 F. Supp. 22, 29 (D. Conn. 1972)), the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding such fraud by Davidson here.  Nor were its findings that Davidson lacked authority and the Garners did not ratify the settlement clearly erroneous.  Finally, while the Hospital argues the Garners' motion was untimely because not made within six months of entry of judgment, it did not establish prejudicial delay."

From Scotusblog.com: 

Docket: 08-1470
Title: Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins
Issue: Whether the Sixth Circuit expanded the Miranda rule to prevent an officer from attempting to non-coercively persuade a defendant to cooperate where the officer informed the defendant of his rights, the defendant acknowledged that he understood them, and the defendant did not invoke them but did not waive them.

• Opinion below (6^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Petitioner's reply

Docket: 08-1402
Title: Berghuis, Warden v. Smith
Issue: Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the Michigan Supreme Court failed to apply "clearly established Federal law" under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when it rejected a state prisoner's Sixth Amendment fair cross-section claim and whether the Sixth Circuit erred in applying the comparative-disparity test (for evaluating the difference between the numbers of African Americans in the community as compared to the venires).

Docket: 08-1521
Title: McDonald, et al.  v. City of Chicago
Issue: Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.

• Opinion below (7^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (08-1521)
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply (08-1521)
• Brief amicus curiae of Arms Keepers
• Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al
• Brief amicus curiae of  National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
• Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union
• Brief amici curiae of Institute for Justice, and Cato Institute
• Brief amicus curiae of California
• Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc.,et al.
• Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Professors

Docket: 08-1301
Title: Carr v. United States
Issue: Whether a person may be criminally prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failure to register when the defendant's underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act's enactment ; whether the Ex Post Facto Clause precludes prosecution under § 2250(a) of a person whose underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated SORNA's enactment.

• Opinion below (7^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply

Docket: 08-974
Title: Lewis et al. v. City of Chicago
Issue: When an employer adopts an employment practice that discriminates against African Americans in violation of Title VII's disparate impact provision, must a plaintiff file an EEOC charge within 300 days after the announcement of the practice, or may a plaintiff file a charge within 300 days after the employer's use of the discriminatory practice?

• Opinion below (7th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply
• Brief amicus curiae of the United States
• Supplemental brief of respondent

Docket: 08-1322
Title: Astrue v. Ratliff
Issue: Whether an "award of fees and other expenses" under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d), is payable to the "prevailing party" rather than to the prevailing party's attorney, and therefore is subject to an offset for a pre-existing debt owed by the prevailing party to the United States.

• Opinion below (8^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply

Docket: 08-1498 ; 09-89
Title: Holder, Attorney General v. Humanitarian Law Project ; Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 2339B(a)(1), which prohibits the knowing provision of "any *** service, *** training, [or] expert advice or assistance," to a designated foreign terrorist organization, is unconstitutionally vague; Whether the criminal prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1) on the provision of "expert advice or assistance" "derived from scientific [or] technical ... knowledge" and "personnel" are unconstitutional with respect to speech that furthers only lawful, nonviolent activities of proscribed organizations.

08-1498

• Opinion below (9^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply
• Brief amici curiae of James J. Carey, et al.

09-89

• Conditional cross-petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Cross-petitioner's reply

Docket: 08-1529 ; 08-1547
Title: Migliaccio, et al. v. Castaneda et al. ; Henneford v. Castaneda et al.
Issue: Does 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) make the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for claims arising from medical care and related functions provided by Public Health Service personnel, thus barring Bivens actions?

• Opinion below (9^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply
• Brief amicus curiae of United States
• Petition for certiorari (08-1547)
• Petitioner's reply (08-1557)
• Brief amicus curiae of Commissioned Officers Association of the United States Public Health Service, Inc. (08-1547)

Docket: 08-1555
Title: Samantar v. Bashe Abdi Yousuf, et al.
Issue: . Whether a foreign state's immunity from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1604, extends to an individual acting in his official capacity on behalf of a foreign state and whether an individual who is no longer an official of a foreign state at the time suit is filed retains immunity for acts taken in the individual's former capacity as an official acting on behalf of a foreign state.

• Opinion below (4^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in five cases today:

Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Company, Inc:  Whether a judge's failure to recuse himself from a case in which he received substantial campaign donations from one of the parties violates the Due Process righs of the other party.

Yeager v. United States:  Whether, under the Double Jeopardy Clause, the government may retry defendants acquitted of some charges on factually related counts for which the jury failed to reach a verdict.

Abuelhawa v. United States - Whether a person who uses a cell phone to buy drugs solely for personal use, which is a misdemeanor, can be charged with the separate crime of using a phone to facilitate the sale of drugs, which is a felony.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a critical film about Senator Hillary Clinton intended to be shown in theaters and on-damand to cable subscribers.

Dean v. United States: Whether, under 18 USC 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), the mere discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking, even if accidental, is subject to a 10-year sentencing enhancement.

Scotusblog provides links to all available briefs and lower court opinions.