LATEST SUMMARIES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EDUCATION LAW, GOVERNMENT BENEFITS
• Students for Sensible Drug Policy Found. v. Spellings

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM, SENTENCING
• US v. Peters
• US v. Black

EVIDENCE, IMMIGRATION LAW
• Zheng v. Mukasey

LATEST SUMMARIES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EDUCATION LAW, GOVERNMENT BENEFITS
Students for Sensible Drug Policy Found. v. Spellings, No. 07-1159
In an action wherein plaintiff sought an injunction and a declaratory judgment that 20 U.S.C. section 1901(r), which suspends eligibility for student loans following a conviction for enumerated drug offenses, contravenes the federal constitution, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the statutory scheme did not violate the Fifth Amendment's provision against double jeopardy, as its underlying provisions are not punitive in purpose or in effect so as to transform into a second criminal penalty. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM, SENTENCING
US v. Peters , No. 08-1672
A denial of defendant's motion for reduction of his sentence pursuant to Amendment 706 to the U.S.S.G. is affirmed where: 1) defendant was not entitled to a reduction of sentence under Amendment 706, as he was already sentenced to the mandatory minimum; and 2) the district court properly denied defendant's request to reconsider his criminal history score, as Amendment 709 was not a covered amendment to which retroactive treatment may be given. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM, SENTENCING
US v. Black , No. 08-1875
An order granting a 10-month reduction to defendant's sentence for a drug-related offense pursuant to Amendment 706 of the Sentencing Guidelines is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly determined that it could not reduce defendant's sentence below the Congressionally-mandated statutory minimum sentence; and 2) in determining the amended guidelines range, the district court properly set the bottom of the amended guidelines range at 60 months. Read more...

EVIDENCE, IMMIGRATION LAW
Zheng v. Mukasey , No. 07-1904
Petition for review of a BIA decision denying petitioner's second motion to reopen his removal proceedings is denied where, under the highly deferential standard of review for motions to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's untimely and number-barred motion. Read more...