Legal News Headlines

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/05] US v. Bendtzen
In a case challenging an enhanced sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual, sentence is affirmed where use of a fake bomb during a bank robbery constitutes "a dangerous weapon. . .otherwise used" and thus a four level sentence increase under U.S.S.G. section 2B3.1(b)(2)(D) and consideration of defendant's past crimes was not unreasonable in calculating a category VI criminal history.

[09/05] US v. Nader
In prosections related to a prostitution ring, convictions for violations of the Travel Act are affirmed where: 1) the convictions were based on telephone calls within a single state; and 2) the telephone is a facility in interstate commerce even when used for in-state calling.

[09/05] US v. Medina-Beltran
In an immigration case, an enhanced sentence is affirmed where: 1) the government's decision not to move for reduced sentencing was not arbitrary; and 2) separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches is not violated by section 401(g) of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, which requires the government to make a motion in order for a defendant to receive a reduced sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

[09/05] US v. Moore
Sentences for unrelated crack cocaine offenses are affirmed where: 1) the courts properly determined that they lacked authority under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) to grant the requested sentence reductions in these cases; 2) when a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant's base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence; and 3) although Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines would reduce the base offense levels applicable to the defendants, it would not affect their guideline ranges because they were sentenced as career offenders under U.S.S.G. section 4B1.1.

Read More

Family Law

[09/03] Johansen v. Comm. of Internal Revenue
In a tax case arising out of a divorce, a holding by the Tax Court that spousal support payments qualify as alimony to be reported as income by the payee is affirmed where: 1) state law requires that spousal support payments terminate on the death of either spouse unless otherwise agreed in writing; and 2) the divorce agreement does not extend spousal support payments beyond death of either party.

[09/03] Alanis-Alvarado v. Mukasey
Petition for review of deportation order is denied where petitioner violated a protection order issued under California Family Code Section 6320, which by definition fits categorically within the protection orders whose violation qualifies as a deportable offense under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

[08/29] In the Interest of M.N.
In a custody case, affirmation of the termination of a mother's parental rights on the basis of untimely filing of a statement of points for appeal is reversed where the trial court was permitted to grant a motion to extend the time for filing the statement of points on a showing of good cause.

[08/27] David L. v. Superior Ct. of Orange County
Regarding juvenile court order setting a new permanent plan selection and implementation hearing, petition for writ of mandate and request for stay are denied where: 1) section 366.3, which provides for a new 366.26 hearing for children under the guardianship, does not require a modification petition; and 2) the prima facie evidence supported the juvenile court's decision to set a 366.26 hearing.

Read More

Sentencing

[09/05] US v. Bendtzen
In a case challenging an enhanced sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual, sentence is affirmed where use of a fake bomb during a bank robbery constitutes "a dangerous weapon. . .otherwise used" and thus a four level sentence increase under U.S.S.G. section 2B3.1(b)(2)(D) and consideration of defendant's past crimes was not unreasonable in calculating a category VI criminal history.

[09/05] US v. Medina-Beltran
In an immigration case, an enhanced sentence is affirmed where: 1) the government's decision not to move for reduced sentencing was not arbitrary; and 2) separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches is not violated by section 401(g) of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, which requires the government to make a motion in order for a defendant to receive a reduced sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

[09/05] US v. Allday
Sentence for receiving sexually explicit images of minors is affirmed over objections that the district court impermissibly applied a presumption of reasonableness to the sentencing range calculated under the guidelines.

[09/05] US v. Moore
Sentences for unrelated crack cocaine offenses are affirmed where: 1) the courts properly determined that they lacked authority under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) to grant the requested sentence reductions in these cases; 2) when a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant's base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence; and 3) although Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines would reduce the base offense levels applicable to the defendants, it would not affect their guideline ranges because they were sentenced as career offenders under U.S.S.G. section 4B1.1.

Read More