Published on:

I like to work with other lawyers when the case warrants it. In fact, it’s rare that I don’t have a few cases in the office where I have co-counsel.

Normally, this is good because I get to see how others are handling the same issues I am. I get to learn what other people are doing and I have an opportunity to improve my game.

There are exceptions, though. Three times this calendar year, I’ve been working with a lawyer at another firm and I’ve stumbled upon an inexcusably lazy way to do legal research. More on that in a second.

Published on:

Gregory Fair was an internet entrepreneur. Of sorts.

Mr. Fair’s Criminal Copyright Enterprise

He sold pirated copies of outdated Adobe software on Ebay. His customers could buy this outdated software, then, with an update code Mr. Fair was also able to provide, they could pay Adobe to upgrade their software to the most current version.

Published on:

If Mitt Romney is right that 47% of Americans think of themselves as victims, then the Second Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Lacy may be deeply unpopular.

Like Mitt Romney, Kirk Lacey and Omar Henry had a vision for the future.

Unlike Mitt Romney, their vision involved short sales, straw buyers, and a little light mortgage fraud.

Published on:

It’s a good week for reversals in fraud cases.

The Second Circuit sent two fraud cases back for resentencing, and vacated a conviction in its entirety! And they’re cool issues — for example, for the “mass marketing” enhancement under the fraud guidelines to apply, the government has to show not just that mass marketing happened, but that mass marketing happened to victims. A number of convictions were also vacated in a criminal tax prosecution, and the Second Circuit found a violation of the defendant’s public trial right.

The D.C. Circuit entered the fraud remand fray, sending a criminal copyright case back because of errors in the restitution order.

Published on:

Federal conspiracy law is a crazy thing.

It seems simple enough – a person is guilty of a federal criminal conspiracy if they agree with someone else to commit a federal crime and take some steps to carry out committing that crime.

But the agreement doesn’t have to be explicit – it can be inferred from the way people act. Sort of in the same way that when my daughter puts cookies in our shopping cart at the grocery store while I’m watching we have an agreement that we’re going to buy cookies.

Published on:

It’s another relatively slow week in the federal appeals courts of our great nation. Perhaps folks are too saturated with election coverage to issue opinions.

Of the three courts that issued opinions this week, only one is in a battleground states (or quasi battleground state) – the Tenth Circuit in Colorado.

The Eleventh Circuit based in Georgia and the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans surely are not drowning in direct mail pieces or television ads.

Published on:

Robert Peoples is no stranger to car trouble.

After his release from prison, he brought three lawsuits against South Carolina prison officials for violating his civil rights.

On the day of jury selection for his civil rights suit, Mr. Peoples was late. The federal judge hearing the case told Mr. Peoples that he had to be in court the next morning by 9:30.

Published on:

It’s a dog’s breakfast of victories in the nation’s federal criminal appellate courts.

Personally, I love a good case on the district court’s contempt power — look to see the Fourth Circuit’s contempt reversal in United States v. Peoples profiled in more depth a little later in the week. The case has everything — a pro se litigant, a finding of contempt, and profanity (which is tastefully referred to in the opinion). It reminds me of another great pro se contempt case from last year. It reminds me, too, of the Sixth Circuit’s relatively recent case on the limits of a district court’s power to sanction a lawyer. Always good stuff.

Which is not to give short shrift to the two other wins from last week — resentencing in an illegal reentry case and unsupported supervised release conditions in a federal sex case.

Published on:

Pretty much every federal district judge in the country knows by now that the sentencing guidelines are not mandatory, the guidelines can’t be presumed to be accurate, and that federal district court judges have authority to impose a sentence above, below, or within the sentencing guidelines, applying the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

1268685_washington_monument.jpgAnd so just about every federal district judge knows that if he or she says she’s going to give a guidelines sentence, he or she has to also say it’s the sentence that they’d give under § 3553(a).

It’s odd, but in federal court it’s very important that a judge knows what power he has, which is exemplified in the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Terrell. If a district judge is going to give a guidelines sentence, he or she has to be clear about whether a lower sentence is even possible.

Published on:

The D.C. Circuit, normally an infrequent presence on this blog, has two cases in one week!

One involves Osama bin Laden’s driver and his happy adventures with retroactivity. The was a remand for a judge who thought that a below guidelines sentence is only appropriate when there are “compelling reasons” to go below the guidelines range.

There’s also go action in a Sixth Circuit meth case involving the Fourth Amendment, and a crime of violence case out of the Tenth Circuit.