This case concerned the revocation of Herbert Bender’s supervised release based on multiple violations, including an assault on a police officer, failure to report the arrest, repeated controlled substance use, missed treatment, and new criminal conduct involving firearm possession and assault with a dangerous weapon, for which he later pled guilty in D.C. Superior Court and received a 27-month sentence. Magistrate Judge Faruqui, after hearings and review of the record, recommended findings that Bender had violated his release conditions as alleged in the probation petitions and a sentence of 10 months of incarceration to run consecutively to the D.C. sentence, with no additional supervised release, noting that the total would equal 37 months at the high end of the guideline range for a Grade A violation. The magistrate reached this recommendation after considering the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the defendant’s mixed compliance history, and the parties’ positions. The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full, as no objections were filed by either party.
The case concerned a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act to an IRS Notice altering the rules for determining when construction begins on wind and solar projects, which affects eligibility for two clean energy tax credits under sections 45Y and 48E as amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The court held that it had jurisdiction over the claims of five of the seven plaintiffs, that the Notice was arbitrary and capricious, and that the proper remedy was to vacate the Notice entirely and remand the matter to the agency. The decision rested on the administrative record showing that the IRS had not adequately explained its departure from over a decade of prior guidance recognizing both the Physical Work Test and the Five Percent Safe Harbor, despite extensive public comments and congressional statements emphasizing reliance on the longstanding standards.
This case involves over 300 plaintiffs—U.S. servicemembers injured or killed in Iraq between 2004 and 2011, along with their estates and family members—suing Iran under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for providing material support to proxy groups that carried out attacks, primarily using Iranian-manufactured explosively formed penetrators (EFPs). Following prior rulings that established Iran's liability for bellwether attacks and 73 additional EFP incidents, the court addressed plaintiffs' request for liability findings on 10 more attacks implicating 39 remaining plaintiffs (two injured individuals, two estates, and 35 family members seeking solatium damages), after holding one attack in abeyance due to the D.C. Circuit's Borochov decision limiting jurisdiction over incomplete killings. The court granted default judgment on liability against Iran for these 10 attacks. It reasoned that extensive prior findings of fact on Iran's relationship with proxies like Hezbollah and Iraqi groups, combined with expert reports (particularly from Col. Kevin Lutz) analyzing military records and attack patterns, demonstrated Iran's responsibility under the FSIA, consistent with its earlier template for non-bellwether claims; damages determinations were referred to Special Masters.
In United States v. Sanchez, defendant Edwin Sanchez, who had pleaded guilty to bank robbery in 2022 and received a 77-month sentence based on a guidelines range of 77-96 months, moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction following retroactive Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 821, which lowered his applicable range to 63-78 months by reducing the impact of status points from his prior criminal history. The district court denied the motion. Although Sanchez was eligible for relief, the court concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did not support a reduction, citing his extensive criminal history involving repeated threats and violence, his quick return to crime shortly after a prior release, ongoing public safety concerns despite his good conduct and mental health treatment while incarcerated, and the fact that the original 77-month term remained within the new guidelines range.
This case involves a proposed class action by individuals incarcerated in District of Columbia Department of Corrections facilities, who allege that the District provides constitutionally inadequate healthcare. The immediate dispute concerned the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the District’s sealed opposition to class certification, which referenced the protected health information of proposed class representatives and other inmates, on the grounds that the disclosure violated HIPAA. The court denied the motion to strike. It reasoned that the District qualifies as a hybrid entity under HIPAA and may use its own records containing protected health information for litigation purposes as part of its health care operations; the District’s use here was reasonable because the information was directly relevant to the claims, was filed under seal with public redactions, and was accompanied by efforts to limit disclosure to the minimum necessary. The court further directed the parties to propose a protective order to govern the information going forward.
This case involves seven plaintiffs—three injured U.S. servicemembers, one injured civilian, and three family members of deceased servicemembers—who sued Iran under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s state-sponsored terrorism exception for harms from attacks using explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) and vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (WBIEDs) linked to Iran and its proxies. After granting default judgment on liability, the court appointed a special master to assess damages and, following supplemental briefing to confirm subject-matter jurisdiction (distinguishing the case from Borochov v. Iran on the presence of extrajudicial killings), reviewed the special master’s report on pain-and-suffering awards for the injured plaintiffs and solatium awards for the family members. The court adopted the special master’s recommended amounts in full, including specific figures such as $7,000,000 for Randall Burns, $7,500,000 for Jason Harrison, $8,250,000 for Steven Juliana, and $6,250,000 for Jonathon Schmidt. The core reasoning was that the report was thorough and well-reasoned, drew on medical records, declarations, and established EFP-damages frameworks (with or without enhancements for hospitalization or permanent impairment), and drew no objections from the plaintiffs.
