In United States v. Tilga, defendants Carolynne Tilga and Michael Chandler faced sentencing after pleading guilty to tax offenses for failing to report income from internet businesses, which they concealed through a network of offshore trusts and entities purchased from the Commonwealth Trust Company between 1998 and 2003. The primary disputes concerned the correct tax loss figure, whether enhancements applied for sophisticated means, special skills, or an aggravating role in the offense, and related presentence report adjustments. The court accepted the parties’ stipulated tax loss of $23,300 and their agreement that no special skills, leadership role, or obstruction enhancements applied, while also allowing post-indictment foreign tax credits to reduce the loss; however, it independently found that the defendants had used sophisticated means under U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1 based on the complex trust structures involved. Other objections regarding plea benefits and the advisory nature of the guidelines were deemed moot.
In Arnold v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, the plaintiffs sought uninsured motorist coverage under New Mexico law for loss-of-use damages after their personal property was stolen from a vehicle, without any accompanying physical damage to the property itself. The district court had previously granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding that the New Mexico Uninsured Motorist Act does not require such coverage. On the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, the court partially revisited its ruling and concluded that the state’s highest court would likely interpret the Act to allow loss-of-use coverage in appropriate cases. However, the court upheld the judgment for the insurer on alternative grounds, determining that New Mexico law does not permit recovery of loss-of-use damages for theft of property absent physical damage. The court also denied the request to certify the issues to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
In United States v. Christy, the government moved to reconsider an order suppressing evidence obtained from a warrantless entry and search of the defendant's New Mexico residence in a federal prosecution tied to the interstate transport of a missing minor (K.Y.). The district court reopened the suppression hearing to receive additional evidence and addressed multiple arguments, including whether deputies conducted an unconstitutional search by peering through window blinds, whether exigent circumstances or the collective-knowledge doctrine justified the entry, and whether the inevitable-discovery doctrine applied. The court ruled that the warrantless search and entry violated the Fourth Amendment, as no exigent circumstances existed despite the minor's reported mental-health issues. It nevertheless declined to suppress the evidence, finding that an out-of-state investigator would have obtained valid search warrants and discovered the same materials through lawful means.
In United States v. Ledezma-Ledezma, the defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and faced a guidelines range of 37–46 months. He sought a downward departure or variance, arguing that his return to the United States was solely to protect his young children from physical and sexual abuse, which he had reported without success from Mexico. The court denied a departure under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6, concluding that family circumstances like his are common in reentry cases and do not fall outside the heartland. It granted a downward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), however, and imposed a 27-month sentence because the specific nature and circumstances of the offense—returning to safeguard children rather than for criminal activity—made a lower sentence sufficient to reflect the offense’s seriousness, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and achieve deterrence without being greater than necessary.
This case involves a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction filed by Mauricio Ricardo Quesada Avendano against Kathryn Elizabeth Stoner Smith seeking the return of their two minor children to Mexico. The father alleged that the mother had wrongfully removed and retained the children in the United States after moving with them from Mexico, where the family had lived since 1998. Following evidentiary hearings, the court found that the father established by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were wrongfully removed from their habitual residence in Mexico and that the mother had not proven any applicable exceptions under the Convention, including those related to domestic violence. The court therefore ordered the return of the children to Mexico and directed the mother to pay the father's court costs, legal fees, and transportation expenses associated with the return. The court declined to enter certain interim orders, such as entry into the NCIC missing persons system, as they were no longer necessary after the mother appeared with the children.
This case involves a breach of contract and related statutory claims by Two Old Hippies, LLC against Catch the Bus, LLC after the purchase of a restored Volkswagen bus, following entry of a default judgment against the defendant. The court addressed motions for summary judgment on damages and attorneys' fees, awarding $116,818.14 in compensatory damages after reducing the amount to exclude certain advertising fees for which the plaintiff received benefit, but denying treble damages due to lack of supporting allegations or evidence of malice. It also required additional detailed billing information to assess attorneys' fees and costs because the submitted affidavit did not separate work on unsuccessful claims, and scheduled a hearing on statutory damages and reasonable fees. The decision relied on undisputed facts from the complaint and local rules treating unopposed motions and statements as admitted, while considering the matter on the merits despite the defendant's pro se status.
