Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
US v. Martin, 07-2272, concerned a challenge to convictions of defendants for violating various provisions of 21 U.S.C. sections 841, 843 and 846, for their respective roles in a narcotics conspiracy.
The court affirmed for the most part with a limited remand for resentencing for certain defendants where: 1) the government provided a satisfactory explanation in this case and therefore no evidence was excludable under section 2518(8)(a); 2) Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; 3) defendant is not entitled to a multiple conspiracies instruction because the theory of defense was not supported by the evidence and the instruction given by the district court put the case before the jury in a straightforward and comprehensive manner; 4) the district court correctly applied an enhancement to a defendant's sentence for possessing a dangerous weapon during the course of the commission of the drug offense; and 5) a limited remand is ordered so that the district court may follow the procedures described in U.S. v. Taylor, 520 F.3d 746, (7th Cir. 2008), to address the effect of both the 2007 Amendment to U.S.S.G. section 2D1.1 and Kimbrough v. U.S., 552 U.S. 85 (2007).
US v. Hudson, 09-3518, involved a prosecution of defendant for possession of a firearm as a felon and possession of a stolen firearm, district court's conclusion that defendant's prior look-alike drug conviction amounted to a "controlled-substance offense," in sentencing defendant to 72 months' imprisonment. In affirming the sentence, the court held that controlled-substance offenses include state-law offenses related to controlled or counterfeit substances punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
Rexam Beverage Can Co. v. Bolger, 08-3403, concerned a challenge to a judgment in favor of defendant-landlord on his counterclaim on several Illinois state law grounds, in a commercial landlord-tenant dispute involving at a warehouse with a leaky roof, the replacement of which both landlord and tenant denied was their responsibility. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that tenant was contractually bound to replace the roof of the warehouse. Also, district court's award of $405,470 in damages for tenant's failure to replace the roof is affirmed. However, district court's Holdover Statute award of $1,156,232.24 is vacated and remanded for a determination of the fair market net rental value of the property and the assessment of a penalty equal to double that value for the duration of the tenant's holdover.
Hutchings v. US, 08-3538, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's request for habeas relief, claiming that his attorney's false guarantee of a Rule 35 reduction in his sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. In affirming, the court held that defendant's ineffective assistance claim fails because he did not adequately show that he would not have pled guilty even had his attorney fully explained to him that a Rule 35 motion to reduce is sentence was not guaranteed. Further, an evidentiary hearing in this case was not necessary because the record conclusively showed that defendant was not prejudiced under Strickland and is therefore entitled to no relief.