In US v. Hall, No. 07-3036, the court of appeals affirmed in part defendant's convictions for one count of conspiracy to commit crimes against the U.S., two counts of bank fraud, four counts of wire fraud, and one count of money laundering conspiracy, on the grounds that 1) a trier of fact could reasonably infer from the trial evidence that during the time period of defendant's bank fraud, which was two to three years before the evidence showed federally insured status, the defrauded bank was in fact federally insured; and 2) the district court allowed sufficient cross-examination of the government's witnesses on their plea bargains to satisfy defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. However, the court reversed in part on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support defendant's money laundering conviction because the alleged money laundering activity was part and parcel of the underlying bank fraud.
In US v. Burroughs, No. 08-3085, the D.C. Circuit affirmed in part defendant's sentence for sexual abuse of a minor, holding that 1) should an evidentiary hearing demonstrate the truth of everything defendant alleged, it still would not be reasonably probable that the district court would have granted him funding under the Criminal Justice Act; and 2) where, as here, the defendant altogether fails to inform the court that he opposes a condition of supervised release, plain error review applies. However, the court vacated in part, on the ground that, not knowing the court's reasons for imposing certain conditions of defendant's supervised release, finding the government's reasons unsupported by the record, and unable to identify any, those conditions needed to be vacated.
In People's Mohajedin Org. of Iran v. US Dept. of State, No. 09-1059, the D.C. Circuit granted a petition for review of the U.S. Secretary of State's designation of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) and its aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), on the ground that the Secretary failed to accord the MEK the due process protections outlined in the court's previous decisions.
Micei Int'l v. Dep't of Comm., No. 09-1155, involved a petition for review of the Department of Commerce's order sanctioning petitioner for alleged violations of export regulations. The court of appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that, because the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not contain a direct review provision, review jurisdiction resided as a first matter in federal district court.
Blumenthal v. FERC, No. 09-1220, involved a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's order approving a utility company's executive compensation. The court of appeals denied the petition on the grounds that 1) petitioner provided no good reason for the court to create a new due process right to an evidentiary hearing where none existed; and 2) even if the court would have used a different comparison group in determining the executive's compensation, the court could not say that FERC's decision to accept the utility's analysis was unreasonable.