In the News -
Criminal Defense Firm

Criminal Law & Procedure Case Summaries

[05/23] US v. Bogle
Defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm and body armor as a convicted felon is affirmed, where 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(1) does not violate defendant's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

[05/23] US v. Shellef
Second judgment of conviction for conspiracy to commit tax fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering is affirmed, where: 1) the findings necessary to extend the prescribed period for retrial from 70 to 180 days under 18 U.S.C. section 3161(e), the Speedy Trial Act, can be made after the initial 70-day period for retrial has passed; 2) the factors relied on by the district judge in granting an extension to 180 days resulted from passage of time, insofar as they reflected changed circumstances between the close of the original trial and the grant of the extension affecting retrial; and 3) the district judge correctly identified sufficient excludable delay to support the conclusion that defendant was retried within 180 days of this court's mandate.

[05/23] Walker v. Schult
Judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint alleging that his conditions of confinement amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment is: 1) affirmed in part, as to defendants Norwood and Lappin; but 2) vacated in part and remanded, where plaintiff's complaint plausibly alleged violations of his constitutional rights, except as to two defendants.

[05/23] US v. Johnson
Order granting a within-Guidelines sentence reduction to Defendant under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) pursuant to Amendment 750 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, but declining to grant a downward variance from the applicable reduced sentencing range is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in determining that defendant was not entitled to a downward variance as a part of his sentence reduction; 2) under section 1B1.10 of the Guidelines, the district court did not have discretion to apply the variance to which defendant asserts he was entitled; and 3) in spite of defendant's arguments to the contrary, section 1B1.10 was a valid exercise of the Sentencing Commission's authority, and did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act's requirements for the promulgation of formal rules.

Read More