US v. Celestin, 09-1161, concerned a challenge to a conviction of a defendant for bank fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud. In affirming the convictions, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to sever defendant's trial from that of his co-conspirator who represented himself. The court also held that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's rejection of defendant's Brady claims, and that defendant failed to show any violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.
Saysana v. Gillen, 09-1179, concerned a Laotian citizen's request for an award of attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, arising from a grant of his petition for habeas relief in his challenge to the BIA's conclusion that he was subject to the mandatory detention provision in 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c). In denying his request for attorney's fees, the court held that, assessed in its totality, the government's position cannot be characterized as unjustified.
Galera v. Johanns, 08-2435, concerned a plaintiff's suit for retaliation under Title VII against the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, claiming that the USDA engaged in discriminatory employment and recruitment practices against him in retaliation for having engaged in protected activity. In affirming the district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court held that plaintiff's claims are barred as the alleged retaliatory conduct occurred prior to the effective date of the parties' settlement agreement, and the agreement complied with the relevant regulation.