Archive for the 'DC COA' Category

Bank Fraud Conviction Upheld Over Evidentiary Challenges

In US v. Brown, No. 08-3018, the court of appeals affirmed defendant’s bank fraud conviction, on the grounds that 1) the extrinsic evidence of defendant’s other uses of fictitious financial documents was substantively and temporally tied to the charged offenses, and those other uses were distinct enough not to be the “needless presentation of cumulative [...]

Administrative Law and Elections Cases

The D.C. Circuit decided one case on a matter of administrative law, specifically pertaining to the FDA, and another concerning elections.
Unity08 v. FEC, No. 08-5526, involved an Administrative Procedure Act challenge to the Federal Elections Commission’s advisory opinion on the question of whether plaintiff would be required to register as a political committee before selecting [...]

Administrative, Civil Procedure, Criminal and ERISA Matters

The D.C. Circuit decided four petitions for review of agency decisions, one civil procedure matter, one criminal case and one ERISA matter.
Elliott v. US Dept. of Agric., No. 07-5385, was an action under the Freedom of Information Act to compel the U.S. Department of Agriculture to disclose blueprints to buildings located on an agricultural research [...]

Race Discrimination Case Decided in Bush v. Dist. of Columbia

Bush v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 08-7016, involved an action by six minority members of a police department claiming that defendant police supervisor’s racially discriminatory conduct and the district’s complicity impaired plaintiffs’ employment contract.
As the court of appeals wrote:  “Plaintiffs are six minority members of the Metropolitan Police Department. They sued their supervisor, … and [...]

Effort to Collect from Individual in Witness Protection Program Addressed

Gonzalez-Vera v. Townley, No. 09-5134, was an action seeking to invoke one of 18 U.S.C. section 3523’s enforcement procedures, the appointment of a guardian to help collect a judgment against an individual under the Witness Protection Program.
As the court of appeals wrote:  “[Defendant] was linked to the July 1976 torture and murder of Carmelo Soria Espinoza [...]

Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (Age Discrimination)

Today, the D.C. Circuit decided an appeal in an action brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and related statutes.
In Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, No. 08-7115, plaintiffs alleged that defendant accounting firm refused to make plaintiffs partners because of their ages, in violation of the ADEA and its District of Columbia and New [...]

US v. Vinton, No. 07-3125

Defendant’s drug and firearm possession convictions are affirmed where it was reasonable for the police to believe evidence relevant to defendant’s weapons-possession offense would be found inside his briefcase.
Read US v. Vinton, No. 07-3125
Appellate Information
Argued December 10, 2009
Decided February 5, 2010
Judges
Opinion by Judge Brown
Counsel
For Appellant:
Beverly G. Dyer, A.J. Kramer and Neil H. Jaffee, Assistant Federal [...]

Miller v. Hersman, No. 08-5494

In a sex and age discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) defendant failed to carry its burden to show that plaintiff did not timely contact an EEO counselor and thus did not exhaust his administrative remedies; and 2) plaintiff did not fail to respond to defendant’s exhaustion argument.
Read Miller v. Hersman, [...]

US v. Goodwin, No. 09-3053

In a prosecution for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, a denial of petitioner’s habeas petition is affirmed where: 1) a “reverse sting” downward departure was inapplicable because petitioner was sentenced not based on drug quantity but rather as a career offender; and 2) petitioner failed to show a reasonable probability that the district court, [...]

US v. Goodwin, No. 09-3053

In a prosecution for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, a denial of petitioner’s habeas petition is affirmed where: 1) a “reverse sting” downward departure was inapplicable because petitioner was sentenced not based on drug quantity but rather as a career offender; and 2) petitioner failed to show a reasonable probability that the district court, [...]