Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In US v. Robinson, No. 08-6023, the Seventh Circuit faced a challenge to the district court's grant of pro se defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) for crack cocaine and firearm related offenses, claiming that the district court had authority to further reduce his sentence. However, because pursuant to section 3582(c)(2), a district court is not authorized to reduce a defendant's sentence below the amended Guidelines range, the court affirmed defendant's sentence. Furthermore, the court denied defendant's motion for appointment of counsel,
Claiborne-Hughes Health Ctr. v. Sebelius, No. 09-3239, concerned a challenge to the Appellate Division of the Departmental Appeals Board's (DAB) affirmance of the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' imposition of a civil money penalty upon, as well as a denial of payment for new admissions for, a skilled nursing facility, due to noncompliance with a number of standards of care required by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
In affirming the judgment, the court held that it was clear that the facility failed to achieve substantial compliance with 42 C.F.R. section 483.10(b)(11) as the DAB correctly noted that a sharp decline in food intake persisting for over three weeks should have brought a resident's significant change in status to the facility's attention. The court also held that the DAB's immediate jeopardy determination was not in clear error, and that substantial evidence existed in the record as a whole to demonstrate that the facility had failed to substantially comply with the requirement that it provide each resident with sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper hydration and health under section 483.25(j). Lastly, the court held that the ALJ was free not to continue making additional rulings once he determined that the deficiencies concerning the two residents sufficed to support imposition of sanctions.
Davis v. Lafler, No. 08-1291, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from convictions for carjacking and receiving and concealing stolen property. In reversing the conviction, the court held that there was insufficient evidence on which to base defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting the carjacking.