This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Share A fractured Supreme Court on Thursday narrowed the scope of a key phrase in the Armed Career Criminal Act, ruling that crimes involving recklessness do not count as “violent felonies” for the purpose of triggering a key sentencing enhancement. Justice Clarence Thomas did not join Kagan’s opinion but concurred in the result.
The case concerns a Texas councilwoman who argues that she was arrested in retaliation for her speech critical of a city government official. After two heated council meetings, it was alleged that Gonzales had placed the petition—with over 300 signatures—in her binder, violating a Texas anti-tampering statute.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in two cases involving one of its own precedents regarding felony firearms possession. The issues in both cases involves the federal law that prohibits felons from possessing firearms, 18 USC §922(g). Two years ago in Rehaif v.
The US District Court for the District of Columbia Tuesday sentenced a North Carolina man to 28 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to a federal felony charge regarding a threat he made against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The trial followed an FBI investigation and prosecution by the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Colombia.
Under the 2019 decision in Rehaif , the government had to prove both that a defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to a category of persons prohibited from possessing firearms in order to convict that defendant under the statute. His conviction was vacated, and the government appealed.
The federal aggravated identity theft statute applies to anyone who “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person” in relation to certain felonies, Daniel Harawa reports for SCOTUSBlog. In Dubin v.
Hendrix , a case that exemplifies the Gordian knot that is the federal habeas corpus statute. United States that Section 922(g) requires the government to prove that the defendant knew he was prohibited from possessing a firearm. Share On Tuesday, the court heard argument in Jones v.
A)(1), does not qualify as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (commonly referred to as “ACCA”). A)(1) did qualify as a violent felony under ACCA. 2022), the Sixth Circuit read Borden as requiring a purposeful or knowing mens rea for offenses deemed violent felony predicate offenses. . § 2911.01(A)(1),
The stranger just happened to be a plain-clothes officer who knew of Wooden’s felony convictions. Because people with felony convictions are generally prohibited from possessing firearms, when the officer stepped inside and saw a gun, he arrested Wooden. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit agreed with the government.
Cordero-Garcia , involving whether a federal law that allows the government to deport noncitizens convicted of “an offense relating to obstruction of justice” applies even to cases that are not connected to open investigations or judicial proceedings. In 2014, Pugin pleaded guilty in Virginia to being an accessory after the fact to a felony.
Kirschenbaum — In a recent decision, the Second Circuit upheld the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG)’s position that Pfizer’s proposed copay assistance program for its high-cost heart treatment would violate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). The Second Circuit’s Interpretation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. Pfizer, Inc.
Singh , in which the court will consider what kind of notice the government must provide before a noncitizen can be deported for not appearing in court. 1229(a) , the government must provide a “notice to appear” in all removal proceedings. Smith was charged with five felony counts. Under 8 U.S.C. The justices then heard FBI v.
Share The federal aggravated identity theft statute imposes a two-year sentence for any person who, “during and in relation to” certain enumerated felonies, “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.” United States. United States. A panel of the U.S.
In 2018 Greek authorities charged Sarah Mardini, Seán Binder and 22 other search and rescue volunteers with various misdemeanor and felony offenses, including human smuggling and money laundering, stemming from their efforts to identify and aid migrant boats off the coast of the island of Lesbos. All we want is justice.
Six years later, the federal government prosecuted Taylor. The case involves the interaction of two federal criminal statutes. The second statute is 18 U.S.C. § Under the so-called “residual clause,” a crime of violence can also include any felony that, “by its nature,” entails “a substantial risk” of physical force.
The law creates a misdemeanor offense for violation of the statute and a felony crime for multiple offenses. It avers that the law “unconstitutionally intrudes on the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens and therefore is field preempted.”
Dubin concerns the reach of the federal aggravated identity theft statute and whether a person must steal another’s identity to commit the crime. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson worried about the due process vagueness concerns that could result from the government’s broad reading of the statute.
Under the ACCA, a person who has three violent felony convictions and is then convicted of possessing a firearm faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years. In this case, the court had to decide whether the term “violent felony” includes crimes committed with a reckless state of mind. Borden objected. Ashcroft and Voisine v.
United States , holding that a conviction under the federal statute penalizing felons in possession of a firearm requires not only the defendant’s knowledge that he possessed a gun, but also that he knew he had the legal status of a convicted felon. 922(g) , the federal felon-in-possession statute. He was acquitted.
States and localities take the lead in addressing violent crime, including gun crime, but the figures are a reflection of the key role played by the federal government in curbing illegal firearms. Most of the defendants prosecuted under federal statutes were charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.
922(g) , the federal statute barring people with prior felony convictions from possessing firearms, the government must prove that the defendant knew he was a felon at the time he possessed a firearm. ‘Felony status is simply not the kind of thing that one forgets.’”.
922(g) , the federal statute making it a crime for a convicted felon to possess a firearm, applies only to people who know they are “felons” within the meaning of that law. “Is the government’s position that the reviewing court can always look outside the trial record, or does it depend on the particular circumstances?”
The answer could determine the scope of a federal criminal statute that punishes carrying or using a gun during a “crime of violence.” The statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) , defines “crime of violence” as any felony that involves “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.”.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has expressed misgivings about white-collar prosecutions under broadly worded statutes. Judge Gregg Costa, joined by six other judges, wrote that “[t]he Supreme Court’s message is unmistakable: Courts should not assign federal criminal statutes a ‘breathtaking scope’ when a narrower reading is reasonable.”
The Armed Career Criminal Act mandates a 15-year mandatory minimum for Section 922(g) offenders (the federal felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute) with at least three prior violent felony or serious drug offense convictions, so long as those convictions were “ committed on occasions different from one another.”
The resulting First District, Division Three, published opinion holds the two constitutional provisions can be reconciled and “both sections govern bail determinations in noncapital cases.” ” Government immunity. Leon is expected to answer, is immunity under Government Code section 821.6 PAGA arbitration.
The “reasonable time” permitted under many state statutes can quickly stretch into months, as in the case of Jessica Jauch, a resident of Choctaw County in Mississippi. A Mississippi grand jury indicted Jauch on felony drug charges, issuing a warrant for her arrest that ultimately ended in her incarceration.
Cordero-Garcia , the justices sought to define the contours of an “offense relating to the obstruction of justice,” which is one among the prior convictions that subjects noncitizens to mandatory removal from the United States as an “aggravated felony.” Martha Hutton argues for Jean Francois Pugin.
Under RLUIPA, the government may not “impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution,” unless the government proves the restriction is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and is “the least restrictive means of furthering” that government interest.
According to the government, these companies knew as early as 2012 that their dehumidifiers were defective, in that they could overheat and catch fire. In 2021, DOJ announced that the Gree Companies agreed to plead guilty to one felony count for willfully failing to report consumer product safety information as required by the CPSA.
In its petition , Abitron argues that the approach of the 10th Circuit conflicts from those of other circuits, which apply a total of six different tests for “deciding whether the Lanham Act governs a defendant’s foreign conduct.”. Claiming rights to water from the Colorado River itself, the Navajo Nation sued the federal government.
Two pending petitions raise the question of the constitutionality of state statutes providing that corporations are deemed to have consented to “general” personal jurisdiction by virtue of having registered to do business in a state. was filed by a plaintiff seeking to enforce a similar registration statute.
Gaulkin — We previously blogged about Pfizer’s copay assistance lawsuit, which sought to challenge HHS’s interpretation of the Federal health care program anti-kickback statute (AKS) and position that the company’s proposed copay assistance program would violate the AKS. By Sophia R.
The Georgia House responded by passing a bill providing that anyone seeking to enforce Chisholm would be “guilty of a felony and shall suffer death, without benefit of clergy, by being hanged.”). Georgia , the Supreme Court relied on this language to allow a suit against Georgia by an out-of-state creditor.
Garner addressed a fleeing unarmed suspects and found the state statute too broad: The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. .” T ennessee v. In Graham v.
At trial, however, prosecutor Thomas Binger at points seemed to be learning the governing law from Rittenhouse. He told the prosecutors “I have been wrestling with this statute with, I’d hate to count the hours I’ve put into it, I’m still trying to figure out what it says, what’s prohibited. I have a legal education.”
Van Buren was charged with a felony violation of the CFAA, which subjects to criminal liability anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access.” Largely relying on textual analysis, the majority rejected the Government’s arguments in favor of its narrow interpretation of the CFAA.
” Division Two held the statute applies only to those enhancements that were “imposed and executed,” not “imposed and stayed.” 5th 518 (see here ), which upheld regulations making early parole off limits to an inmate who is incarcerated for both nonviolent and violent felonies. Penal Code section 1172.75
” The government conceded that four of the five favored Range, but Pratter found that he was still properly barred under the “cross-jurisdictional consensus” among other states. It also is an appeal that would be made by the United States over the invalidation of a federal statute.
No comparable statute exists for potential gravely disabled conservatees, but today’s opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan concludes that those potential conservatees are similarly situated with NGIs, and that constitutional equal protection principles thus require the government to “justify its differential treatment.”
The defendant was sentenced over 40 years ago to life without parole for felony murder after a jury’s true finding of felony-murder special circumstances. The 2018 legislation narrowed felony murder liability and allows for resentencing. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 5th 433, 451-452.” ” (Link added.)
Similar constitutional challenges have been brought against a range of California laws governing subjects from foie gras to low-carbon fuel , but despite a relist or two along the way, the court has taken none of them. Issue : Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. relisted after the Jan. Goertz , 21-442.
SB 1437 was enacted in 2018 to limit criminal liability for felony murder or murder under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, in which the issue was limited to: “Can a public entity be held liable under Government Code section 830.8 See here.) Lopez case. (See See here.).
Moreover, the challengers note, the federal government argues that the Commission lacks authority to place restrictions on acquitted-conduct sentencing , because 18 U.S.C. 3661 bars the imposition of restrictions on the information about the background and conduct of defendants that courts can consider.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content