A few 10th Circuit cases:
U.S. v. Pruitt, 2008 WL 4218798 (9/16/08) (unpub'd) - On remand from the S. Ct. to reconsider in light of Gall, the unanimous panel rules its original decision that applied a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard to uphold a within-Guidelines sentence was consistent with Gall. This is the case where the extremely sympathetic defendant [career offender for nonviolent offenses from 1992] got a humongous sentence [292 months] for drug dealing and prompted the majority to say the sentence was at the "outer boundary" of reasonability and Judge McConnell to opine in a concurrence that the sentence seemed overly severe to him, but that he could not see how legally an appellate court could ever overturn a within-guideline sentence for substantive unreasonability. See U.S. v. Pruitt, 502 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 2007).
U.S. v. McCalister, 2008 WL 4239751 (9/17/08) (unpub'd) - The 10th affirms a denial of a request for 3582(c)(2) relief in part on the ground that the defendant's career offender status rendered the guideline amendment irrelevant with respect to the original guideline range calculation.
Ajaj v. U.S., 2008 WL 4192738 (9/15/08) (unpub'd) - The one-year deprivation of outside recreation was not sufficiently serious to violate the 8th Amendment. It was not a violation of the 8th Amendment to place the plaintiff federal prisoner in Florence, which is a high altitude place, despite the plaintiff's breathing issues. The doctor only wrote that the plaintiff would experience limited exercise capacity at facilities more than 2,000 feet above sea level and should be considered for facilities below that elevation. The doctor did not say placement at a lower elevation was medically necessary. It was also not a constitutional violation to place the plaintiff in a facility where smoking was allowed even though the medical instructions said the plaintiff should be placed in non-smoking housing. The facility did enough to keep the smoke at a low enough level, e.g. room him with non-smoking roommates and provide an air filter. But such housing could be a violation under the Federal Tort Claims Act's incorporation of Colorado's due care requirement. A Federal Tort Claims Act inmate alleging a particular need for smoke-free housing may potentially demonstrate a breach of duty of care when the U.S. fails to place the inmate in a completely smoke-free environment. So the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Judge Henry concurs in the result but urges the government not to take the position that deprivation of outdoor exercise for an extended period of time is never an 8th Amendment violation. Judge Henry believes such a deprivation is a violation, but in this case there was no such violation because the plaintiff would often decline to take advantage of the exercise opportunities offered.
U.S. v. McCalister, 2008 WL 4239751 (9/17/08) (unpub'd) - The 10th affirms a denial of a request for 3582(c)(2) relief in part on the ground that the defendant's career offender status rendered the guideline amendment irrelevant with respect to the original guideline range calculation.
Ajaj v. U.S., 2008 WL 4192738 (9/15/08) (unpub'd) - The one-year deprivation of outside recreation was not sufficiently serious to violate the 8th Amendment. It was not a violation of the 8th Amendment to place the plaintiff federal prisoner in Florence, which is a high altitude place, despite the plaintiff's breathing issues. The doctor only wrote that the plaintiff would experience limited exercise capacity at facilities more than 2,000 feet above sea level and should be considered for facilities below that elevation. The doctor did not say placement at a lower elevation was medically necessary. It was also not a constitutional violation to place the plaintiff in a facility where smoking was allowed even though the medical instructions said the plaintiff should be placed in non-smoking housing. The facility did enough to keep the smoke at a low enough level, e.g. room him with non-smoking roommates and provide an air filter. But such housing could be a violation under the Federal Tort Claims Act's incorporation of Colorado's due care requirement. A Federal Tort Claims Act inmate alleging a particular need for smoke-free housing may potentially demonstrate a breach of duty of care when the U.S. fails to place the inmate in a completely smoke-free environment. So the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Judge Henry concurs in the result but urges the government not to take the position that deprivation of outdoor exercise for an extended period of time is never an 8th Amendment violation. Judge Henry believes such a deprivation is a violation, but in this case there was no such violation because the plaintiff would often decline to take advantage of the exercise opportunities offered.
posted by Anonymous at 9:41 AM
<< Home