Unpublished Decisions
U.S. v. Yellowbear, 2010 WL 2340819 (6/11/10) (Wyo) (unpub'd) - While the 10th noted notice and explanation violations of Rule 25 when a judge substituted for the trial judge at sentencing, it was okay for the substitute judge to sentence the defendant, although the judge had not witnessed the trial and the defendant relied in part on trial evidence and the emotional reaction of the jurors to their verdict. The trial judge discussed the case with the new judge. The 10th opined in reviewing the substantial reasonableness of a sentence that it was not bound by the parsimony principle, it only reviewed for reasonableness.
Morris v. Workman, 2010 WL 2332056 (6/11/10) (Okl) (unpub'd) - There was no violation of the defendant's right to an impartial jury when jurors expressed security concerns after noticing the defendant was taking notes during voir dire. The judge sufficiently assuaged their concerns and they said they could be impartial.
Estalita v. Holder, 2010 WL 2340814 (6/11/10) (unpub'd) - Alien files a motion to reopen her removal hearing on the grounds that she had been granted a labor certification. But 5 days later, she leaves the country pursuant to a voluntary departure deadline. The BIA initially grants her motion to reopen, but then denies it after learning the alien had left the country. The 10th somewhat acknowledges this is a sympathetic situation, but rules it must follow precedent that says DHS regs preclude the granting of an alien's motion to reopen when she's out of the country.
Lemay v. Winchester, 2010 WL 2332074 (6/11/10) (Okl) (unpub'd) - The plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the defendants' involvement in failing to provide a diabetic diet, which would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Strope v. McKune, 2010 WL 2332079 (6/11/10) (Kan) (unpub'd) - It was not cruel and unusual punishment to refuse to turn on the heat for the prison where the nights got down to 40 degrees. The warden could wait until he was sure it was going to stay cold. Each inmate was given a blanket and could wear warm clothing.
Morris v. Workman, 2010 WL 2332056 (6/11/10) (Okl) (unpub'd) - There was no violation of the defendant's right to an impartial jury when jurors expressed security concerns after noticing the defendant was taking notes during voir dire. The judge sufficiently assuaged their concerns and they said they could be impartial.
Estalita v. Holder, 2010 WL 2340814 (6/11/10) (unpub'd) - Alien files a motion to reopen her removal hearing on the grounds that she had been granted a labor certification. But 5 days later, she leaves the country pursuant to a voluntary departure deadline. The BIA initially grants her motion to reopen, but then denies it after learning the alien had left the country. The 10th somewhat acknowledges this is a sympathetic situation, but rules it must follow precedent that says DHS regs preclude the granting of an alien's motion to reopen when she's out of the country.
Lemay v. Winchester, 2010 WL 2332074 (6/11/10) (Okl) (unpub'd) - The plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the defendants' involvement in failing to provide a diabetic diet, which would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Strope v. McKune, 2010 WL 2332079 (6/11/10) (Kan) (unpub'd) - It was not cruel and unusual punishment to refuse to turn on the heat for the prison where the nights got down to 40 degrees. The warden could wait until he was sure it was going to stay cold. Each inmate was given a blanket and could wear warm clothing.
posted by Anonymous at 8:40 AM
<< Home