ummaries for May 30, 2015
|
|
|
| Docket: 13-3644 | Opinion Date: May 29, 2015 |
| Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
Ramer was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1349. The conviction stemmed from a sham investment scheme in which Ramer and a codefendant solicited more than $1 million from individuals, but did not invest the money as they had promised. The district court sentenced Ramer to 42 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay $1,077,500 in restitution. The court imposed a 3-year term of supervised release and, as a special condition, directed that Ramer make restitution payments “at a rate of not less than $100 per month.” Ramer appealed, arguing that the d court erred by not conditioning the restitution payments on his ability to pay. Before the Government filed its brief, the district court had amended the judgment to state that Ramer’s obligation to pay was “conditioned on” his ability to pay. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal.
|
| Docket: 14-3370 | Opinion Date: May 29, 2015 |
| Areas of Law: Immigration Law |
In the1980s, Habib married a woman in Pakistan and had three children with her there. It is unclear when or how Habib came to the U.S. In 1996, he married Bualice, a U.S. citizen, and three years later adjusted his status to that of lawful permanent resident based on that marriage. Habib did not disclose any children or prior marriages in his application to adjust status or during his interview. He applied for naturalization in 2004 and again neglected to list any children or prior marriages. When interviewed by USCIS, he stated that Bualice was his first wife. USCIS denied Habib’s application in 2010 on the ground that he had obtained lawful permanent residency by fraud and was ineligible for naturalization, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), and because he lacked a valid entry document. At a hearing, Habib’s attorney stated that he had not seen the Notice to Appear but, when given a copy of the document, proceeded to admit and deny the allegations without consulting Habib, who was present. After Habib was ordered removed, the BIA denied a motion to reopen. The Seventh Circuit granted a petition for review, finding that the Board abused its discretion when it determined that Habib was not prejudiced by his lawyer’s mistakes.
|
| Docket: 14-2983 | Opinion Date: May 29, 2015 |
| Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law |
Indiana inmate Kervin alleged, in a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, that prison officials violated his constitutional rights after he insisted on being allowed to see his lawyer, who had come to the prison to speak with him. The meeting did occur, delayed by a few minutes. He contends that a guard threatened to file a false complaint and that he was placed in segregation as punishment and denied due process of law when his attempts to seek redress through the prison’s grievance system for his wrongful punishment were thwarted by biased grievance officers. Kervin admits he was punished that for defying the guard’s order by asking to be let out of the day room to meet with his lawyer after being told that he could not leave the room just yet. The district judge dismissed on the pleadings, after screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. The Seventh Circuit affirmed: backtalk by prison inmates to guards, like other speech that violates prison discipline, is not constitutionally protected. Kervin did not allege that he suffered any significant psychological or other injury from segregation .
|
No comments:
Post a Comment