Monday, July 28, 2008

U.S. v. Rodriguez, 2008 WL 2736747 (7/15/08) (unpub'd) - In an unauthorized use of a credit card case, the 10th affirms variance from 33 months to the stat max of 48 months on the grounds expressed by the district court that any term of incarceration would "simply be an interruption in the defendant's criminal career."

U.S. v. Lester, 2008 WL 2751240 (7/16/08) (unpub'd) - A one-year-old exchange of e-mails indicating the defendant purchased a silencer established probable cause for the presence of a silencer in the defendant's home. The warrant affidavit said silencers are typically kept for a long time.

Tigert v. Higgins, 2008 WL 2747002 (7/16/08) (unpub'd) - The prisoner did not state a valid claim for relief where he was disciplined for refusing a work order because his back needed medical attention and couldn't handle the work. "Inmates cannot unilaterally decide to disobey orders that they perceive (even correctly) to be unjust or illegitimate."

U.S. v. Battres, 2008 WL 2746993 (7/16/08) (unpub'd) - A photo of an adult sexually penetrating a prepubescent child automatically calls for a 4-level enhancement under ยง 2G2.2(B)(4) as "portraying sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depiction of violence," whether or not the government proves the adult derived sexual pleasure from the act and even if the child's facial expressions or the staging of the photo present the heinous acts in a "positive light."

U.S. v. Alvarado-Molina, 2008 WL 2746249 (7/15/08) (unpub'd) & U.S. v. Holtz, 2008 WL 2755449 (7/16/08) (unpub'd) - Following the the Supremes' remand for reconsideration in light of Gall, the Tenth found no mandatory application of the Guidelines where a within-Guidelines sentence was imposed. In contrast to U.S. v. Kittredge, 2008 WL 2766162 (7/17/08) (unpub'd) where, without discussion of the facts, the 10th remands to the district court in light of the Supremes' Gall remand.

U.S. v. Dawson, 2008 WL 2736740 (7/15/08) (unpub'd) - The 10th applies plain error review to the question whether the district court erred by failing to append to the written judgment its ruling that resolving a factual dispute was unnecessary to its sentencing determination.