LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL PROCEDURE, IMMIGRATION LAW
• Llapa-Sinchi v. Mukasey

CIVIL PROCEDURE, INSURANCE LAW, PER CURIAM
• Thompson v. State Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
• US v. Negrete-Santana

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
• US v. Peroceski
• US v. Abdullahi
• US v. Rojas
• US v. Mendoza-Gonzalez

IMMIGRATION LAW, PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
• Gitau v. Mukasey

LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL PROCEDURE, IMMIGRATION LAW
Llapa-Sinchi v. Mukasey, No. 07-1774
A petition for review of a BIA decision finding petitioner ineligible for a suspension of deportation is denied where the government properly served petitioner with notice even though: 1) she was only 14 years old at the time; and 2) the government did not serve additional notice on a responsible adult. Read more...

CIVIL PROCEDURE, INSURANCE LAW, PER CURIAM
Thompson v. State Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. , No. 07-1969
In an action involving an insurance offer settlement, adverse denial of plaintiffs' post-judgment motions to amend the judgment and for reconsideration is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in determining that defendant's offer of judgment was legally valid under Rule 68; and 2) judgment entered pursuant to Rule 68 is void. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
US v. Negrete-Santana, No. 07-1172
After a jury conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, grant of motion for judgment of acquittal is reversed and remanded where, viewing evidence most favorably to the verdict, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude defendant aided and abetted possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
US v. Peroceski, No. 07-1336
In order to apply a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. section 2D1.1(b)(1) for possessing a dangerous weapon in connection with a drug crime, the government must prove: 1) the weapon was present; and 2) it was not clearly improbable that the gun was connected to the offense. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
US v. Abdullahi, No. 07-1768
Sentence for operating an unlicensed money transmitting business is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the sentence resulted from an unreasonable application of the factors contained in 18 U.S.C section 3553(a); 2) the district court violated his right to be meaningfully present at his own trial by refusing to provide him with a recording of a language interpreter used at sentencing; and 3) the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by applying the amended version of 18 U.S.C. section 1960 to conduct he committed prior to the enactment date of the amended statute. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
US v. Rojas, No. 07-1287
In a case where one of the victims of sexual abuse and assault offenses recanted her testimony after a jury conviction at trial, district court's judgment is reversed insofar as it denied defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing based on the reported recantation where: 1) no physical evidence corroborated with victim's original trial testimony; and 2) defendant's conviction relied heavily on victim's purported testimony. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
US v. Mendoza-Gonzalez , No. 07-2660
Conviction for aggravated identify theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1028A(a)(1) is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) section 1028A(a)(1) requires the government to prove that he "knew" the identification used belonged to another actual person and the government failed to do so; and 2) the government failed to meet its burden of proving that the identification he used belonged to an actual person. Read more...

IMMIGRATION LAW, PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
Gitau v. Mukasey, No. 07-1987
A petition for review of a BIA order denying petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider removal proceedings and upholding the IJ's absentia removal order, is denied where there is no basis to find that BIA abused its discretion in upholding the absentia order even though the petitioner's counsel may have failed to adequately represent her. Read more...