Defendant's conviction for failing to register in accordance with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is affirmed where: 1) sex offenders with pre-SORNA convictions, like defendant, had a duty to register even if the jurisdiction in which the offense occurred had not implemented SORNA; 2) defendant's guilty plea waived his right to claim that he was physically unable to register under SORNA; and 3) defendant had adequate notice of his duty to register.

Read US v. Brown, No. 08-17244

Appellate Information

Filed November 5, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Birch

In a capital habeas matter, denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) a witness's testimony about her criminal history was literally accurate; 2) it was unclear what evidence petitioner claimed was suppressed by the state; 3) the district court's finding that the prosecutor did not bully petitioner into testifying was not clear error; 4) there was no evidence that the prosecutor received exculpatory test results and hid them; and 5) certain suppressed evidence was not material, given the overwhelming evidence of petitioner's guilt.

Read Hammond v. Hall, No. 08-11108

Appellate Information

Filed November 4, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Carnes

Defendant's firearm possession sentence is affirmed where a conviction for eluding the police under Section 316.1935(3)(a) of Florida's penal code qualified as a "crime of violence" for the purposes of U.S.S.G. section 2K2.1(a)(4)(A).

Read US v. Harris, No. 08-15909

Appellate Information

Filed November 3, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Marcus

In an action by a rail carrier against a warehouseman for penalties assessed for the undue detention of rail cars, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where a freight re-loader cannot, without notice, be made a consignee by the unilateral action of a third party.

Read Norfolk Southern Rwy. Co. v. Groves, No. 08-15418

Appellate Information

Filed November 2, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Fay

Defendant's bank robbery conviction and sentence are affirmed where 1) the district court properly concluded that there was sufficient information to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant; 2) there was no evidence that the district court made an erroneous ruling regarding the prosecution's peremptory challenges that required immediate correction; and 3) there was substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Read US v. Tate, No. 09-10288

Appellate Information

Filed October 30, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Alarcon

Defendants' marijuana possession convictions are affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting defendants' cellular call records into evidence; 2) the district court properly instructed the jury that the prosecution's summaries of the call records were not evidence. However, certain defendants' sentences are reversed where the district court plainly erred in treating some drug offenses as "serious drug offenses" under 18 U.S.C. section 3559(c) and then imposing the mandatory life sentences.

Read US v. Sanchez, No. 06-15143

Appellate Information

Filed October 30, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Tjoflat

In an action against an insurer claiming that the insurer was estopped from contesting that a judgment against plaintiff was covered by the policy, the court of appeals certified the following questions to the Georgia Supreme Court:  1) does an insurer effectively reserve its right to deny coverage if it informs the insured that it does "not see coverage," after the insured had received a written reservation of rights from the insurer's sister company in a similar lawsuit in another jurisdiction, or is a written or more unequivocal reservation of rights required?; 2) when an insurer assumes and conducts an initial defense without notifying the insured that it is doing so with a reservation of rights, is the insurer estopped from asserting the defense of noncoverage only if the insured can show prejudice, or is prejudice conclusively presumed?; and 3) if the insured must show prejudice, do the facts and circumstances of this case show it?

Read World Harvest Church, Inc. v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co., No. 08-17258

Appellate Information

Filed October 30, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Carnes

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming that a university denied plaintiff fraternity official recognition because of its refusal to adhere to the university's nondiscrimination policy in violation of the First Amendment, plaintiff's appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot where the university amended its nondiscrimination policy to allow plaintiff to register as a student organization.

Read Beta Upsilon Chi Upsilon Chapter v. Machen, No. 08-13332

Appellate Information

Filed October 27, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Tjoflat

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force by police, denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds to defendants is affirmed where the alleged repeated tasering of plaintiff's decedent into and beyond his complete physical capitulation was grossly disproportionate to any threat posed and was unreasonable under the circumstances.

Read Oliver v. Fiorino, No. 08-15081

Appellate Information

Filed October 26, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Marcus

Defendant's firearm possession conviction is affirmed where defendant lacked standing to contest a search that led to the discovery of the gun at issue because the search was of a co-defendant's car.  However, his sentence is reversed where a non-violent "walkaway" escape is not a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Read US v. Lee, No. 08-14724

Appellate Information

Filed October 26, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Birch