Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In US v. Van Buren, No. 08-6262, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's conviction for failing to comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), on the grounds that 1) defendant's conduct in terminating his residence to travel to North Carolina, with no intention of returning to his residence in New York, qualified as a "change" in his residence regardless of which definition of "change" one uses; 2) between SORNA's language and legislative history, it was clear that a registrant must update his registration information if he alters his residence such that it no longer conforms to the information that he earlier provided to the registry.
In US v. Gilmore, No. 07-0349, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's sentence for producing child pornography of a minor child under his custody and control, holding that, if a sentencing court calculates and considers a sentence under the version of the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense, but referred to a subsequent version of the Guidelines as indicative of the seriousness of the offense and the reasonableness of a non-Guidelines sentence, there is no violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
In re Ephedra Prods. Litig., No. 06-2071, involved a personal injury action alleging injuries resulting from the ingestion of the drug ephedra. The Second Circuit certified the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: 1) Are the provisions of N.Y. C.P.L.R. section 214-c(4) providing for an extension of the statute of limitations in certain circumstances limited to actions for injuries caused by the latent effects of exposure to a substance? 2) Can an injury that occurs within 24 to 48 hours of exposure to a substance be considered "latent" for these purposes? 3) What standards should be applied to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists for resolution by a trier of fact as to whether "technical, scientific or medical knowledge and information sufficient to ascertain the cause of [the plaintiff's] injury" was "discovered, identified or determined" for N.Y. C.P.L.R. section 214-c(4) purposes?