Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
US v. Campbell, 09-3527, concerned a challenge to the district court's imposition of a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence to run concurrently with defendant's state sentence for an unrelated offense, without crediting defendant with the nine months already served for the state sentence, in a prosecution of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm. In vacating and remanding for resentencing, the court held that, under section 5G1.3, district court had the discretion to adjust defendant's sentence to account for the time he had served on his state conviction.
Sottoriva v. Claps, 09-1311, concerned a challenge to the district court's reduction of an Illinois Department of Human Rights employee's fee award by 67%, accounting for the partial success of the employee's suit against the Director of the Department and the Comptroller of the State of Illinois for withholding portions of his salary without an adequate hearing. In vacating judgment and remanding the matter, the court held that, although it was entirely proper for the district court to conclude that plaintiff achieved only "partial" success and that the lodestar figure should thus be reduced to reflect this fact, the district court provided insufficient reasoning in support of its judgment.
Issaq v. Holder, 09-2288, concerned an Iraqi citizen's petition for review of of BIA's denial of petitioner's application for withholding of removal and other findings. In denying the petition, the court held that a Report is not enough on its own to support a finding that any persecution petitioner, as an Assyrian Christian, would face would occur at the hands of government agents, or would otherwise be condoned by the government. The court also held that petitioner's residential burglary crime led to an aggregate of more than five years' imprisonment and was a "particularly serious" felony for purposes of section 1231(b)(3)(B). Lastly, although the IJ erred in overlooking certain evidence in the Report, petitioner has not shown he was prejudiced by the error, and nothing in the record suggests that he was seeking a deferral of removal under the CAT.