US v. Collier, No. 06-1395
A sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm is vacated and remanded where the trial court erred in applying an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA) as defendant's conviction for prison escape under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. section 750.193 did not qualify as a "violent felony" under the ACCA.
Showing posts with label cyberlaw. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cyberlaw. Show all posts
Friday, July 13, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
preliminary injunction, prohibiting the government from seizing "the contents of any personal e-mail account maintained by an Internet Service Provide
Warshak v. US, No. 06-4092
A preliminary injunction, prohibiting the government from seizing "the contents of any personal e-mail account maintained by an Internet Service Provider in the name of any resident of the Southern District of Ohio without providing the relevant account holder or subscriber prior notice and an opportunity to be heard on any complaint, motion, or other pleading seeking issuance of such an order" is affirmed, with slight modification, where the district court correctly determined that e-mail users maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of their e-mails, and the injunctive relief it crafted was largely appropriate.
A preliminary injunction, prohibiting the government from seizing "the contents of any personal e-mail account maintained by an Internet Service Provider in the name of any resident of the Southern District of Ohio without providing the relevant account holder or subscriber prior notice and an opportunity to be heard on any complaint, motion, or other pleading seeking issuance of such an order" is affirmed, with slight modification, where the district court correctly determined that e-mail users maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of their e-mails, and the injunctive relief it crafted was largely appropriate.
Labels:
criminal law,
cyberlaw,
Search Warrant,
Supreme Court,
unconstitutional,
ussg,
violation,
white collar
Monday, June 18, 2007
Speedy trial Violation Pro-se Disbarred Attorney
US v. Stephens, No. 04-30185, 05-30668
Defendant's convictions and sentence for various charges arising out of a string of armed bank robberies in Louisiana are reversed and vacated, respectively, where neither a codefendant's guilty plea nor defendant's own severance motion rendered a particular 7 week-period excludable from the speedy trial clock, and thus, the Speedy Trial Act was violated
Defendant's convictions and sentence for various charges arising out of a string of armed bank robberies in Louisiana are reversed and vacated, respectively, where neither a codefendant's guilty plea nor defendant's own severance motion rendered a particular 7 week-period excludable from the speedy trial clock, and thus, the Speedy Trial Act was violated
Pro-se habeas winner
Ogle v. Johnson, No. 06-11074
Dismissal of federal habeas petition is reversed where a pro se petitioner fairly presents his claim to a state habeas court when he makes a bare allegation of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in his state habeas petition and then describes in briefs and testimony in later proceedings several instances of alleged ineffective assistance
Dismissal of federal habeas petition is reversed where a pro se petitioner fairly presents his claim to a state habeas court when he makes a bare allegation of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in his state habeas petition and then describes in briefs and testimony in later proceedings several instances of alleged ineffective assistance
Labels:
criminal law,
cyberlaw,
district court,
federal court,
unconstitutional
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
district court erred in failing to state its specific findings
US v. Bearam, No. 05-2823
Conviction and sentence for conspiring to distribute cocaine base, operating a business that distributed controlled substances, and distributing and possessing with intent to distribute controlled substances are affirmed except as to sentence which is remanded for resentencing where the district court erred in failing to state its specific findings regarding the amount of narcotics for which defendant is responsible and defendant's role in the offense
Conviction and sentence for conspiring to distribute cocaine base, operating a business that distributed controlled substances, and distributing and possessing with intent to distribute controlled substances are affirmed except as to sentence which is remanded for resentencing where the district court erred in failing to state its specific findings regarding the amount of narcotics for which defendant is responsible and defendant's role in the offense
Labels:
criminal law,
cyberlaw,
district court,
relevant conduct,
unconstitutional,
ussg
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Special conditions, which a district court imposed on defendant's lifetime term of supervised release after he pled guilty to possessing child pornogr
US v. Voelker, No. 05-2858
Special conditions, which a district court imposed on defendant's lifetime term of supervised release after he pled guilty to possessing child pornography, are vacated and remanded where: 1) an absolute lifetime ban on using computers and computer equipment as well as accessing the internet, with no exception for employment or education, involved a greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary, and was not reasonably related to the applicable statutory factors; 2) a lifetime ban on possessing "sexually explicit materials" was overly broad and unsupported by the district court's analysis; and 3) although a restriction on defendant's associating with children, including his own, may have been supported, the district court improperly delegated absolute authority to a probation office over such restrictions.
Special conditions, which a district court imposed on defendant's lifetime term of supervised release after he pled guilty to possessing child pornography, are vacated and remanded where: 1) an absolute lifetime ban on using computers and computer equipment as well as accessing the internet, with no exception for employment or education, involved a greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary, and was not reasonably related to the applicable statutory factors; 2) a lifetime ban on possessing "sexually explicit materials" was overly broad and unsupported by the district court's analysis; and 3) although a restriction on defendant's associating with children, including his own, may have been supported, the district court improperly delegated absolute authority to a probation office over such restrictions.
Labels:
criminal law,
cyberlaw,
district court,
federal court,
unconstitutional,
ussg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)