Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In US v. Mayweather, No. 08-50449, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, holding that there was a fundamental and dispositive difference between McTiernan and this case -- namely, whether, prior to pleading, the defendant was aware of the prospect of making a suppression motion.
In Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., No. 08-55483, an action brought against a Chinese-language newspaper by some of its California-based employees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and under California law, the court affirmed judgment for plaintiffs where 1) the evidence before the district court did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to the reporters' status; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class; 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in invalidating the opt-outs and in restricting defendant's ability to communicate with class members; 4) substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict; 5) the FLSA does not preempt a state-law section 17200 claim that "borrows" its substantive standard from FLSA; and 5) it was within the district court's discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the section 17200 claim in this case.
In US v. Briggs, No. 09-30108, the court affirmed defendant's convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine and conspiracy to possess a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime, holding that there was no evidence that defendant was incapable of understanding his guilty plea. However, the court vacated defendant's sentence where the district court erroneously calculated his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines when it applied a firearm-related enhancement to his offense level.
In Sapp v. Kimbrell, No. 05-15745, an action by a prisoner alleging improper treatment of his eye condition, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for failure to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act where, although improper screening may excuse a failure to satisfy the PLRA's exhaustion requirement, the facts did not show that prison officials improperly screened out plaintiff's administrative grievances.
In Ward v. Ryan, No. 07-17156, an action alleging that the state's withdrawal of $50.00 from plaintiff's prison wages pursuant to an Arizona statute that required that amount of money be placed in a dedicated discharge account, to be paid to him upon his release from incarceration, violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the court affirmed summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff did not have a current possessory property interest in the wages withheld in the dedicated discharge account and he had not been permanently deprived of those funds.
In Bateman v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., No. 09-55108, a Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) case alleging that defendant movie theater chain violated FACTA by printing more than the last five digits of consumers' credit or debit card numbers on electronically printed receipts in December 2006 and January 2007, the court reversed the denial of class certification where none of the grounds cited by the district court -- the disproportionality between the potential liability and the actual harm suffered, the enormity of the potential damages, or defendant's good faith compliance -- justified the denial of class certification on superiority grounds and the district court abused its discretion in relying on them.
In Martinez v. Schriro, No. 09-15170, a prosecution for sexual conduct with a person under the age of fifteen, the court affirmed the denial of petitioner's habeas petition where there was no federal constitutional right to the assistance of counsel in connection with state collateral relief proceedings, even where those proceedings constituted the first tier of review for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
In Sullivan v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 08-35413, an action alleging improper denial of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) benefits, the court affirmed summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff was not entitled to FMLA benefits because her new employer, for whom she worked for less than 12 months, was not a successor in interest of her former employer.