In re: Cmty. Bank of N. Virginia & Guaranty Nat'l Bank of Tallahassee Second Mortgage Loan Litig., 08-3621, concerned a challenge to the district court's decisions certifying the "settlement only" nationwide class action and approving the class settlement, in a nationwide class action lawsuit alleging predatory home equity lending scheme involving two banks and a company that purchased second mortgage loans from them.
September 2010 Archives
Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, 09-3603, involved a plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit challenging the strip search of plaintiff upon his admission to the general population following his arrest on a bench warrant. In vacating the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment strip search claim, the court remanded the matter as, balancing the jail's interests at the time of intake before arrestees enter the general population against the privacy interests of the inmates, the strip search procedures described by the district court at the county jail and the county correctional facility are reasonable.
US v. Riley, 08-3361, concerned a challenge to the convictions of a former mayor of Newark, New Jersey, and a co-defendant for engaging in a fraudulent scheme to purchase city-owned parcels of real property.
US v. Mundy, 07-4112, concerned a challenge to a conviction and sentence of defendant for possessing 500 grams or more of cocaine with intent to distribute and for possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine in a protected area. In affirming the convictions, the court held that the PPD Live Stop Policy sufficiently standardized criteria regulating the scope of a permissible inventory search, including searches of closed containers, and the officer's search adequately complied with those criteria. Further, the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement to defendant's guidelines offense level under section 2D1.2(a)(1).
Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 09-3753, concerned a challenge to the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, in plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a state-run juvenile detention center and several of its staff members, claiming various constitutional violations for sustaining a tragic spinal cord injury while attempting to make a tackle during a "pick-up" football at the center.
US v. Stadtmauer, 09-1575, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for conspiracy to defraud the United States and for willfully aiding in the filing of materially false or fraudulent tax returns. In affirming the conviction, the court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Cheek v. US does not prohibit a willful blindness instruction that applies to a defendant's knowledge of relevant tax law. Also, any error in admitting a witness's testimony was harmless and thus does not require reversal. The court rejected defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct. District court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert's testimony, and any error in district court's decision to exclude certain exhibits during defense counsel's cross-examination of the government's witnesses did not prejudice defendant.
Massie v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 09-1087, involved a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), seeking to compel action that they claim was unlawfully withheld by HUD. In reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of HUD, the court held that section 311 did apply to HUD's management and disposition of the property at issue in this case. The court also held that HUD failed to make a determination that the property was not feasible for continued assistance and therefore failed to comply with the terms of section 311. Lastly, the grant of summary judgment on the issue of the cause of the displacement of the tenants is improper, and the matter is remanded for additional fact-finding on the issues of whether the tenants were displaced due to a federally financed project and, if so, whether the tenants who were entitled to relocation assistance at Uniform Relocation Act (URA) levels received such assistance.