U.S. v. Johnson, 2012 WL 1524019 (5/2/12) (Okl.) (unpub'd) - The defendant waived his argument that the Miranda warnings were incomplete by not raising the issue below, although he did raise other Miranda issues. That he argued he actually had raised the issue below showed that he did not have good cause for not raising the issue. It was okay for the d. ct. to instruct the jury that the government was under no obligation to use all the investigative methods at its disposal. The defendant's instant bank robbery offense qualified as a strike for the three-strikes statute. The defendant did not meet his burden to prove no threat of a dangerous weapon was used in the offense where he told the teller he had a detonator, although the detonator was actually fake. The categorical approach does not apply to prior convictions for the 3-strikes statute, It's the facts, not the elements, that matter [Isn't that a violation of Apprendi, etc.?]. The materials showed that, with respect to a prior conviction, the defendant used physical force by beating a child and he used a dangerous weapon, an extension cord, to cause serious bodily injury. Defendant gets a life sentence.

Jordan v. Wiley, 2012 WL 1435933 (4/26/12) (Col.) (unpub'd) - The 10th upholds discipline imposed for violating BOP's rule against an inmate possessing his own PSR.

Morales v. Jones, 2012 WL 1563886 (5/4/12) (Okl.) (unpub'd) - The 10th grants a pro se prisoner's rehearing petition and holds that the plaintiff's letter to the d. ct. requesting forms to appeal was the equivalent of filing a notice of appeal. Therefore his appeal was timely. But he loses on the merits.

Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 2012 WL 1511775 (5/1/12) (Col.) (Published) - Since the plaintiff challenged his transfer from one facility to another (ADX) and the transfer seemed to the 10th like a garden-variety prison placement, he should have proceeded pursuant to Bivens, not § 2241.