Skip navigation

Punch and Jurists: February 6, 2012

Issue PDF
Volume 19, Number 3

In this issue:

  1. Durso v. Napolitano, No. Civ. No. 10-02066 (HHK) (D.D.C.) (795 F.Supp.2d 63) (July 5, 2011) (Judge Henry H. Jr. Kennedy) (p None)
  2. U.S. v. 2001 LEXUS LS430 VIN JTHBN30F910017797, No. 1:10cv94 (GBL) (E.D.Va.) (799 F.Supp.2d 599) (December 3, 2010) (Judge Gerald Bruce Lee) (p None)
  3. Lebron v. Rumsfeld, No. 11-6480 (4th Cir.) (670 F.3d 540) (January 23, 2012) (Judge J. Harvie III Wilkinson) (p None)
  4. Reynolds v. U.S., No. 10-6549 (U.S. Supreme Court) (565 U.S. 432; 132 S.Ct. 975) (January 23, 2012) (Justice Breyer) (p None)
  5. Doe v. City of Albuquerque, No. 10-2102 (10th Cir.) (667 F.3d 1111) (January 20, 2012) (Judge David M. Ebel) (p None)
  6. U.S. v. Martin, No. 10-5301 (4th Cir.) (662 F.3d 301) (November 30, 2011) (Judge Allyson Kay Duncan) (p None)
  7. U.S. v. Strandlof, No. 10-1358 (10th Cir.) (667 F.3d 1147) (January 27, 2012) (Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich) (p None)
  8. U.S. v. Forde, No. 11-1070 (8th Cir.) (664 F.3d 1219) (January 5, 2012) (Judge William J. Riley) (p None)
  9. U.S. v. Bistline, No. 10-3106 (6th Cir.) (665 F.3d 758) (January 9, 2012) (Judge Raymond M. Kethledge) (p None)
  10. U.S. v. Jones, No. 10-1259 (U.S. Supreme Court) (565 U.S. 400; 132 S.Ct. 945) (January 23, 2012) (Justice Scalia) (p None)
  11. U.S. v. Spriggs, No. 10-14919 (11th Cir.) (666 F.3d 1284) (January 10, 2011) (Judge Charles R. Wilson) (p None)

Durso v. Napolitano, No. Civ. No. 10-02066 (HHK) (D.D.C.) (795 F.Supp.2d 63) (July 5, 2011) (Judge Henry H. Jr. Kennedy)

Here the Court dismissed a lawsuit challenging TSA’s Advanced Imaging Technology and aggressive pat-downs at airports, holding that 49 U.S.C. § 46110 places exclusive jurisdiction for such lawsuits wih the appeals courts.

Anyone considering a lawsuit against the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) challenging some of the more abusive airport searches ...

U.S. v. 2001 LEXUS LS430 VIN JTHBN30F910017797, No. 1:10cv94 (GBL) (E.D.Va.) (799 F.Supp.2d 599) (December 3, 2010) (Judge Gerald Bruce Lee)

This case raised a single, but significant, issue - namely whether the Government could prove a “substantial connection,” as that term is used in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”), between two vehicles owned by the defendant, Mark Jackson, and his offense of interstate travel with intent to engage ...

Lebron v. Rumsfeld, No. 11-6480 (4th Cir.) (670 F.3d 540) (January 23, 2012) (Judge J. Harvie III Wilkinson)

Fourth Circuit affirms the dismissal of Jose Padilla’s Bivens action Aaainst Donald Rumsfeld and other defendants arising out of his detention as an “Enemy Combatant” by the Military.

In Lebron v. Rumsfeld, 764 F.Supp.2d 787 (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2011) (P&J, 03/07/11), District Judge Richard Gergel dismissed a civil rights lawsuit ...

Reynolds v. U.S., No. 10-6549 (U.S. Supreme Court) (565 U.S. 432; 132 S.Ct. 975) (January 23, 2012) (Justice Breyer)

The federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (herein “SORNA” or the “Act”), 42 U. S. C. §16901 et seq., requires those convicted of certain sex crimes to provide state governments with identifying information, such as names and current addresses, for inclusion on state and federal sex offender registries, and ...

Doe v. City of Albuquerque, No. 10-2102 (10th Cir.) (667 F.3d 1111) (January 20, 2012) (Judge David M. Ebel)

Here the Court grudgingly rejected a ban enacted by the City of Albuquerque on the use of public libraries by convicted sex offenders after the City offered no evidence showing whether the ban was sufficiently narrowly tailored.

In this case of first impression, the Tenth Circuit addressed a ban, enacted ...

U.S. v. Martin, No. 10-5301 (4th Cir.) (662 F.3d 301) (November 30, 2011) (Judge Allyson Kay Duncan)

Here a sharply divided panel held that the district court had jurisdiction to order criminal forfeiture of the defendants' property after their sentencing and the entry of judgments, in violation of the plain language of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2(3).

On August 31, 2006, the multiple defendants in this case were convicted by ...

U.S. v. Strandlof, No. 10-1358 (10th Cir.) (667 F.3d 1147) (January 27, 2012) (Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich)

In 2006, Congress enacted the Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704(b) (herein the “SVA”), which makes it a Federal crime for anyone to “falsely represent[ ] . . . verbally or in writing” that he or she has been awarded “any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the ...

U.S. v. Forde, No. 11-1070 (8th Cir.) (664 F.3d 1219) (January 5, 2012) (Judge William J. Riley)

Here the Court upheld as reasonable a special condition of supervised release that prohibited the defendant from using alcohol or entering bars, even though it acknowledged that there was no evidence that the defendant’s crime related to alcohol or bars.

In U.S. v. Bass, 121 F.3d 1218 (8th Cir. Aug. ...

U.S. v. Bistline, No. 10-3106 (6th Cir.) (665 F.3d 758) (January 9, 2012) (Judge Raymond M. Kethledge)

Here the Court held that the child pornography guidelines, which are based upon a patchwork of congressional enactments and directives to the Commission, were entitled to even more deference than those issued by the Commission because Congress had a significant role in creating them. (Id., at 763-64). The Court also ...

U.S. v. Jones, No. 10-1259 (U.S. Supreme Court) (565 U.S. 400; 132 S.Ct. 945) (January 23, 2012) (Justice Scalia)

In U.S. v. Maynard, 615 F.32d 544 (D.C.Cir. Aug. 6, 2010) (P&J, 08/09/10), the D.C. Circuit considered the joint appeals of Lawrence Maynard and Antoine Jones who were convicted of a conspiracy to possess and distribute substantial amounts of cocaine and cocaine base. Although both defendants raised a number of ...

U.S. v. Spriggs, No. 10-14919 (11th Cir.) (666 F.3d 1284) (January 10, 2011) (Judge Charles R. Wilson)

Here the Court held that the mere use of a file-sharing program to download child pornography from the Internet does not, by itself, establish a transaction that will support the five-level sentencing enhancement called for by U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(B).

The issue raised in this case was whether the sentence enhancement provided ...