Sixta v. Thaler, No. 07-20890, involved an intoxication manslaughter prosecution. The court affirmed summary judgment for respondent on petitioner's habeas petition, holding that the applicable procedural rules required the respondent in a 28 U.S.C. section 2254 proceeding to serve both the answer and any exhibits attached thereto on the habeas petitioner, and respondent complied with this requirement.
In Gray v. Epps, No. 09-70021, a capital habeas matter, the court affirmed the denial of petitioner's habeas petition, holding that petitioner's new evidence regarding his intellectual functioning did not have a reasonable probability of influencing the jury's decision regarding his moral culpability.
Hardy Wilson Mem. Hosp. v. Sebelius, No. 09-60312, involved an action against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), alleging that CMS's method for calculating reimbursement payments for costs incurred by health care providers' psychiatric units between 2003 and 2005 violated 42 U.S.C. section 1395ww(b)(3)(A) and was inconsistent with the agency's own regulations. The court reversed summary judgment for defendants on the ground that the plain text of subsection (c)(4)(iii) did not support defendant's contention that "the only reasonable interpretation of the regulations is that all of subsection (c)(4)(iii) expired in 2003 because the statutory authority under which it was promulgated (the BBA) expired at that time."