LATEST SUMMARIES

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
• US v. Innarelli
• US v. Marti-Lon

EVIDENCE, IMMIGRATION LAW
• Pulisir v. Mukasey

LATEST SUMMARIES

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
US v. Innarelli, No. 06-2400
In a prosecution for wire fraud and conspiracy to launder money for defendant's role in a "land-flipping" scheme in Massachusetts, defendant's sentence is affirmed over claims that the district court: 1) erred in calculating the amount of loss for purposes of determining guidelines base offense level; and 2) failed to adequately account for several personal circumstances justifying a lower sentence. However, an order requiring defendant to pay restitution to defrauded victims is vacated and remanded where the court appeared: 1) to have based some or all of the awards on intended loss rather than actual loss; and 2) to have taken into account emotional damages with respect to victim-buyers. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
US v. Marti-Lon, No. 07-1040
Conviction and sentence for unlawful distribution of prescription drugs, monetary transactions from unlawful activity, and false statements is affirmed over claims of: 1) trial errors, primarily prosecutorial misconduct and error by the court as to its treatment of two jurors; 2) sentencing errors claiming that defendant was wrongly denied credit when the prosecution declined to move for a departure based on substantial assistance, and that the district court erroneously calculated the amount of loss attributable to her conduct. Read more...

EVIDENCE, IMMIGRATION LAW
Pulisir v. Mukasey, No. 07-1356
Petition for review of an order denying petitioner's request for withholding of removal is denied over claims that: 1) neither the BIA nor the IJ made an express finding about petitioner's past persecution; 2) the BIA and IJ misconceived the conceptual definition of "persecution" and "discrimination"; 3) the IJ read the State Department Country Reports so selectively as to run afoul the rule in Gomes v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 746 (2007); and 4) the IJ's conduct violated petitioner's due process rights. Read more...