Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[08/01] US v. Ruff
A modified sentence of one day in prison and three years supervised release, with conditions, for health care fraud, embezzlement and money laundering is affirmed over the government's claims of error where the district court did not abuse its discretion and the sentence it imposed was reasonable.

[08/01] Mendez v. Knowles
Denial of a petition for habeas relief from petitioner's convictions for the molestation of two minor boys is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in excusing petitioner's late filing of a notice of appeal; and 2) a claim of instructional error failed as it was absolutely certain that the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner was guilty of the charged offenses; and 3) the circuit court declines to expand the certificate of appealability to consider a due process claim that the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine his competence.

[08/01] US v. Defoor
A sentence imposed after the district court found defendant violated the terms of his supervised release is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not exceed its statutory authority in sentencing him; and 2) the sentence imposed was not unreasonable.

[08/01] US v. Wecht
In a trial accusing a public official of misusing his office for private financial gain, an order to withhold from the public the names and addresses of prospective and trial jurors is vacated where: 1) the collateral order doctrine granted jurisdiction to hear the appeal; 2) intervenors-media companies had standing to challenge the order; 3) there is a presumptive First Amendment right to obtain the names of jurors prior to empanelment, which was not overcome here; but 4) a requirement that voir dire be conducted in open court would intrude upon the discretion of the trial court.

[08/01] Trenkler v. U.S.
Grant of writ of error coram nobis to inmate petitioner, which vacated petitioner's original sentence on the grounds that ten years earlier the court had illegally sentenced him to life imprisonment, is reversed where: 1) the substance of the petition falls under U.S.C. Section 2255(a) habeas corpus petition; 2) a 2255 petition is unauthorized by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA); and 3)according to US v. Barrett, the writ of coram nobis may not be used to circumvent the clear congressional directive embodied in the 'second of successive' provisions of Section 2255. District court is directed to reinstate original sentence.

More...