Montanez v. Thompson, No. 05-4430, concerned a plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a records specialist with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, claiming that he was incarcerated beyond the expiration of his maximum term of imprisonment as a result of defendant's deliberate indifference in responding to his inquiries and challenges. In reversing the district court's order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court held that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims.
In Bradley v. US Attorney General, No. 08-4184, the court dealt with a petition for review, by a citizen and national of New Zealand, of a final removal order of the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In denying the petition, the court held that the evidence is more than sufficient to prove that he signed a VWP waiver and that he cannot invalidate his removal order as he cannot demonstrate that he was "substantially prejudiced" by his allegedly unknowing waiver. Furthermore, petitioner is not entitled to pursue a marriage-based adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. section 1255(c)(4) because, although he was once statutorily eligible, he may not, after the expiration of his 90-day stay, adjust his status as a defense to removal.
D.S. v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., No. 08-4730, concerned a challenge to the district court's judgment terminating the obligation of defendant-school board to pay the tuition of plaintiffs' son at a private school for learning disabled children and denying their motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. In reversing the decision of the district court, the court reinstated the ALJ's orders as the ALJ properly determined that defendant had failed to provide plaintiffs' son with a free and appropriate public education during the 2006-2007 school year in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). ALJ's finding that a private school would be an appropriate placement so that the son be placed in that school at defendant's expense is also reinstated.
US v. Robinson, No. 09-3505, concerned a challenge to the district court's calculation of defendant's sentencing guideline range for conspiring to steal and convert United States Treasury checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 641 and 471. In affirming the sentence, the court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant and one of the co-defendants were engaged in joint criminal activity and the court rejected defendant's claim that his sentence is unreasonable based on the mere allegation of a difference between the sentencing calculations in defendant's case and his co-defendant's case.