Unpublished Decisions

U.S. v. Jimenez, 2009 WL 1927370 (7/7/09) (unpub'd) - The contention that officers were not lawfully in a particular place from which they saw incriminating stuff in plain view could not be raised by the defendant who did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place the officers invaded. Consequently, the defendant could not contest the legality of the officers' protective sweep of a home which the defendant only visited to conduct his drug business.

U.S. v. Garton, 2009 WL 1927400 (7/7/09) (unpub'd) - The 10th indicated the government probably violated a felon-in-possession plea agreement promise not to seek charges against the defendant for any additional offenses arising out of the circumstances of that case when it later introduced evidence of the felon-in-possession incident during a trial resulting in the defendant's conviction for a drug conspiracy and carrying a firearm in relation to the drug conspiracy. But any error was harmless because the evidence was overwhelming that the defendant was guilty of committing the charged offenses over the course of time after the events related to the plea agreement.

U.S. v. Green, 2009 WL 1991364 (7/10/09) (unpub'd) - The defendant's waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary when he was given the choice of either proceeding with competent, prepared counsel or representing himself.

Thompson v. Sirmons, 2009 WL 1991324 (7/10/09) (unpub'd) - The habeas petitioner did not preserve his objections to the magistrate's [oh, excuse me, magistrate judge's] findings by saying "all the remainder of the magistrate's [sic] propositions are contrary to federal law." Objections to a magistrate's [oh, excuse me, magistrate judge's] habeas findings must be more specific than that to avoid waiver of claims on appeal.