The case involved Defendant Heywood Smith IV, who was indicted on two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) by knowingly possessing firearms after a prior misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and is overbroad, vague, and irrational. The court denied the motion, applying intermediate scrutiny and concluding that the statute is substantially related to the important government interest of preventing domestic gun violence by individuals with such convictions.
The case involved the sentencing of a defendant convicted by jury on three federal counts of receiving obscene visual depictions of child sexual abuse, receiving such material as a registered sex offender, and possessing child pornography, following evidence of decades-long collection of such materials and a prior state conviction for sexual abuse of a minor. The court addressed the defendant's objections to the Presentence Investigation Report, his request for a downward variance from the Sentencing Guidelines range of 210-262 months (plus a consecutive 10-year term) to the statutory minimums, and his arguments that the guidelines lack empirical support and that a within-guidelines sentence would violate the Eighth Amendment. The court overruled the PSR objections, rejected the variance request after applying the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and found no Eighth Amendment violation, reasoning that the guideline enhancements were appropriate given the offense conduct and that comparable sentences for similar child pornography offenses with prior sexual abuse history had been upheld as constitutional.
The case concerned a federal prisoner's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons' refusal to designate his New Jersey state prison as the site for service of his federal sentence nunc pro tunc. Petitioner had been sentenced in federal court to 210 months for bank robbery and firearm possession, with an upward departure based on pending state armed robbery and attempted murder charges; after pleading guilty in state court, the state sentence was ordered concurrent with the federal one, but he served the full state term first and received no federal credit. The court analyzed the BOP's authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), the federal sentencing judge's intent, statutory limits on concurrent sentencing with unimposed state terms, and potential due process concerns arising from the sequence of custody and loss of appeal rights.
This case concerns IRS petitions to enforce administrative summonses served on Gerard and Kathnell O'Shea requiring them to testify and produce documents about their tax liabilities for 2002-2004 in connection with two trusts they allegedly administered. The O'Sheas appeared but refused to comply, asserting Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination and claiming the summonses were procedurally defective or sought irrelevant information. The court granted the petitions in part and denied them in part after finding the government had made a prima facie showing of good faith under the Powell factors, that the trusts qualified as collective entities ineligible for Fifth Amendment document-production privileges, and that certain procedural challenges lacked merit while limiting enforcement to avoid compelled testimony in some respects.
This case involves West Virginia consumers who sued Fingerhut and CIT Bank after the companies made 89 debt collection calls to their home even after being notified that the consumers had hired an attorney. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act provisions prohibiting unreasonably oppressive debt collection conduct and unfair contact with represented debtors. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that one provision was unconstitutionally vague and that the Act's penalties unduly burdened their First Amendment commercial speech rights. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that debt collection calls receive limited First Amendment protection, that the statute provided fair notice to sophisticated creditors like the defendants, and that the challenged provisions were not unconstitutionally vague or burdensome.
In United States v. Talada, the defendant was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 with failing to register as a sex offender in West Virginia after relocating from New York, where he had prior felony convictions for attempted sexual abuse and possessing a sexual performance by a child. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that SORNA was unconstitutional as applied to pre-enactment offenders because it violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and other provisions when the full regulatory scheme was not yet implemented in states. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation after de novo review of the objections. The court reasoned that the Attorney General's 2007 interim rule made SORNA's registration requirements applicable to pre-SORNA offenders, the criminal penalties were not retrospective as applied here, and the majority of constitutional challenges had been rejected by other courts.