#PJ NET #ILLINOIS passes #CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS BILL !!!

The sponsor of House Bill 1121, Rep. Lou Lang, talks about victims' rights.

CREDIT LISA RYAN/WUIS

Illinois voters passed a constitutional amendment last year to ensure crime victims' rights. Now lawmakers are working to make the criminal code match up.

Listen

Listening...

Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins fights for victims' rights because her sister, brother-in-law and their child were murdered. She was denied the right to provide a victim impact statement. Even though Illinois law allowed impact statements at the time, it didn't allow victims any recourse if they were denied.

"It had been very difficult on our family then, and to this day, it really tugs at me and tugs at all of us that we were never actually able to say to the offender what he had taken from us," she said.

http://goo.gl/lnjG9V

Please RT - THANKS!

\

Daily Opinion Summaries U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States v. Johnson

Docket: 13-1531	Opinion Date: February 12, 2014
Judge: Williams
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Johnson pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, and the sentencing memorandum requested an enhancement for committing a sex offense on the basis that Johnson sexually assaulted his former girlfriend, S.W. Unexpectedly for both the prosecution and defense counsel, S.W. appeared at his sentencing hearing and stated she wanted to testify. The judge exercised his authority to call S.W. to the stand. She testified that although she did not want Johnson to perform oral sex on her on the date in question, he did so but did not use force. The judge relied on S.W.’s testimony and imposed a U.S.S.G. 2A3.5(b)(1)(A) enhancement for committing a sex offense while in failure to register status. The Seventh Circuit vacated the sentence. The crimes of criminal sexual assault and abuse in Illinois require the use or threat of force in such a situation.

http://j.st/Zkih
View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

Daily Opinion Summaries U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Helman v. Smeltzley Docket: 12-3428 Opinion Date: February 6, 2014 Judge: Rovner Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Officers arrived at Helman’s residence to execute warrants for his arrest. They hoped for a peaceful surrender. Helman exited the home and spoke with officers. In response to questions as to whether he was armed, Helman lifted his shirt to show a semi-automatic handgun. Helman handed the officers papers and returned to his house. The officers informed other members of the state police that Helman was carrying a loaded firearm. A six-hour stalemate followed, after which Helman walked into his yard carrying water and a cup. The Emergency Response Team moved in to prevent him from retreating back into his home and activated a flash bang device to distract Helmanhim. According to the officers, Helman turned, and, seeing the ERT, attempted to draw his handgun. Officers shot Helman multiple times. Helman claims that he did not reach for his weapon until after that device went off and shots were fired. Helman pled guilty in state court to resisting law enforcement with a deadly weapon. Helman sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging excessive force. The district court rejected the suit on summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Helman’s version of the facts would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction and, under the facts found in that conviction, the response of the officers was reasonable. http://j.st/v9s View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Johnson Docket: 13-1350 Opinion Date: February 6, 2014 Judge: Easterbrook Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Legal Ethics Convicted of robbing three banks, Johnson was sentenced to 220 months’ imprisonment. At trial Prince told the jury that he and Johnson had planned and executed the robberies together. Williams testified that Prince asked her to give him a ride one day and was accompanied by a stranger. She drove them several places, lastly a grocery store. Prince and the stranger entered the store and robbed the branch bank inside. Williams picked a photo of Johnson from an array of six photos. On appeal, Johnson argued that the judge should not have allowed Williams and the agent who conducted the array to testify about the identification because the Seventh Circuit has suggested that police show photographs sequentially rather than in an array. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, noting that Johnson did not attempt to show that all photo spreads are unnecessary and suggestive, or make it impossible for counsel to use the tools of the adversary process to explore an identification’s reliability. All six photos met Williams’s description and the array was not suggestive. The court also imposed a fine on Johnson’s attorney for omitting, from his brief, the court’s reasons for declining to exclude the identification. http://j.st/v9P View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

No bond for elderly Sebring woman who repeatedly fed bears

Posted: Jan 31, 2014 11:18 AM CSTUpdated: Jan 31, 2014 7:25 PM CST

By: Deborah Bowden, FOX 13 News - bio

SEBRING (FOX 13) -

Neighbors say Mary Musselman has been feeding backyard animals as long as they can remember.

"She fed the squirrels, the birds, strays and that was in the community. She's just always been that kind of soul," says neighbor Patty Palmer.

That is, until Wednesday, when the 81-year retired physical education teacher was hauled to jail for feeding bears one too many times.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/24601276/2014/01/31/no-bond-for-sebring-woman-who-repeatedly-fed-bears

Daily Opinion Summaries U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals - #criminal law, #legal ethics,

Richardson v. City of Chicago Docket: 13-2467 Opinion Date: January 22, 2014 Judge: Easterbrook Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Legal Ethics Off-duty Officer Macon argued with Richardson about Macon’s former girlfriend. Macon fired his gun at Richardson but missed. When on-duty officers arrived, Macon said that Richardson had struck him with a baseball bat. Richardson was arrested and charged with assault and battery. After the charges were dismissed, Richardson filed suit, with 39 claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law against Chicago, Macon, the arresting officers, and others. Chicago was dismissed before trial because municipalities are not vicariously liable under section 1983, and the district judge found that none of the city’s policies (including its training regimens) was constitutionally deficient. The jury rejected claims against the other defendants, but decided in Richardson’s favor on one claim, concerning the shot Macon fired, and awarded $1 in nominal damages plus $3,000 in punitive damages. Macon did not appeal, nor did Chicago, which under Illinois law must indemnify Macon for the $1 but not the punitive award. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Richardson sought more than $675,000 in fees. The district judge awarded $123,000, noting that the firm’s billing did not allow non‑compensable time to be separated out. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the award as “generous, considering Richardson’s recovery.” http://j.st/vq7 View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Foley Docket: 13-1386 Opinion Date: January 22, 2014 Judge: Hamilton Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Foley was convicted of three counts of producing child pornography, one count of distributing child pornography, one count of taking a child across state lines for the purpose of a sex act, and one count of possessing child pornography. Foley appealed, arguing that government’s evidence failed to satisfy the commerce element of those charges (18 U.S.C. 2251(a)) and that the district court improperly admitted evidence of a prior sexual assault under Federal Rule of Evidence 413, causing unfair prejudice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Foley’s storage devices (hard drives manufactured in China and in Thailand) could be considered by a jury as material used in “production” sufficient to satisfy the commerce element. The disputed testimony was relevant to Foley’s propensity to commit sexual crimes against children, and to his intent and motive; given the overwhelming evidence of the sexual assault, there was little risk of prejudice. http://j.st/vqi View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

Chasensky v. Walker Docket: 13-1761 Opinion Date: January 22, 2014 Judge: Manion Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Communications Law, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law In Wisconsin, Register of Deeds is an elected position. If a vacancy occurs mid-term, the governor may appoint an interim Register for any unexpired portion of the term. The Marinette County Register announced her mid-term retirement. Chasensky, then employed as Chief Deputy Register of Deeds, sought the interim appointment. Chasensky was interviewed by Esser, Walker’s appointments official, who informed Chasensky that he would forward her application to Governor Walker for appointment to the position. Esser subsequently learned that Chasensky was involved in a personal bankruptcy proceeding. Esser informed Chasensky that Walker would not appoint her as interim Register. Chasensky claims that Werwie, Walker’s official spokesperson, publically broadcast that she was not appointed because she was in a bankruptcy proceeding and that “[d]erogatory comments and innuendo regarding [her] bankruptcy, personal financial matters and character which impugned and harmed [her] professional and personal reputation were intentionally publically disclosed by Governor Walker and Mr. Werwie” when Governor Walker spoke on the FOX television network. Werwie publically announced that Walker had planned to appoint her until he learned of her bankruptcy. In her suit alleging violation of privacy rights, employment rights, and of 11 U.S.C. 525(a) (bankruptcy discrimination), the district court held that the defendants waived qualified immunity by failing to raise it before their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Seventh Circuit reversed; the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Chasensky’s privacy and equal protection claims. http://j.st/vqJ View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Cheek Docket: 12-2472 Opinion Date: January 22, 2014 Judge: Manion Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law From 2002–2003, Cheek sold marijuana and crack cocaine to a drug dealer, Eason. While Cheek was in prison in 2004, his associate supplied the drugs. After his release, Cheek went back to selling drugs. He was incarcerated again in 2008, but informed Eason and others that he would resume selling drugs. Law enforcement persuaded Eason to perform controlled buys and record his interactions with Cheek. With court authorization, law enforcement intercepted more than 20,000 phone and text conversations from Cheek. Cheek was convicted of conspiring to possess and distribute more than 280 grams of crack cocaine and more than 100 kilograms of marijuana from 2001 to 2011; intending to distribute more than 28 grams of crack cocaine in August, 2010; intending to distribute marijuana on March 23, 2011; and using a telephone on February 11 and 23, 2011, to facilitate the drug conspiracy. Before trial, the government indicated, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 851, intent to seek an enhanced sentence based on seven prior felony drug convictions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence of 576 months, rejecting challenges to testimony about the meaning of drug code words. The court also rejected challenges to the sentence: that the court failed to comply with section 851(b); violated constitutional rights, by enhancing Cheek’s sentence beyond the 480-month statutory maximum, because the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Cheek was convicted of the prior felonies supporting the enhancement; that the court erred in imposing the obstruction of justice enhancement and failed to meaningfully consider mitigation arguments. http://j.st/vTy View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

George Stinney, 14, executed in 1944; new trial sought

This undated file photo provided by the South Carolina Department of Archives and History shows George Stinney Jr., the youngest person ever executed in South Carolina, in 1944. (AP Photo/South Carolina Department of Archives and History, File)

January 21, 2014 (SUMTER, S.C.) -- A 14-year-old black boy executed nearly 70 years ago is finally getting another day in court, and his lawyers plan to argue Tuesday for a new trial, saying his conviction was tainted by the segregationist-era justice system and scant evidence

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=9401831

Daily Opinion Summaries U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals - Criminal Law,

Spurling v. C&M Fine Pack, Inc. Docket: 13-1708 Opinion Date: January 13, 2014 Judge: Kanne Areas of Law: Health Law, Labor & Employment Law In 2004 Spurling began working for C&M as a packer assigned to the third (night) shift. In 2009, she began to experience decreased consciousness and alertness, for which she received several disciplinary warnings. Spurling received a Final Warning/Suspension in February 2010 after she left her work site to use the restroom and did not return for more than 20 minutes. After her suspension, Spurling met with her manager and supervisors and indicated that her sleep issues were caused by a prescribed medication; she produced a note to the same effect. Spurling continued to experience difficulty remaining conscious at work and received a Final Warning/Suspension, Spurling informed human resources that her performance issues might be related to a medical condition. Although her doctor indicated that she had a disability, C&M concluded that she did not and terminated her employment. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of C&M, rejecting claims of violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part. Spurling established disputed issues of material facts as to whether C&M failed to properly engage in the interactive process required by the ADA, but did not provide sufficient notice to establish a claim under the FMLA. http://j.st/tH5 View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

Pierce v. Colvin Docket: 13-1525 Opinion Date: January 13, 2014 Judge: Hamilton Areas of Law: Injury Law, Public Benefits Pierce claimed that she injured her lower back in 2004 while moving cases of glassware at her waitressing job. She quit her job and sought medical treatment. An MRI showed signs of disc degeneration. She received chiropractic and electric-shock treatments to her back. She also took prescription pain medication. After her back improved, she started a new job at a café. In March 2006 (her alleged onset date for disability), Pierce re-injured her back to the point that she could no longer sit or stand comfortably, and she had to quit her new job. The injury disrupted her sleep, caused numbness in her legs, and prevented her from being able to sit, stand, lift, or bend for long periods. She could not work for more than five hours without pain. An ALJ found that Pierce, then more than 55 years old, was not disabled. The Seventh Circuit remanded for further proceedings, finding the ALJ’s assessment of Pierce’s credibility was flawed in several respects. http://j.st/trH View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Valdez Docket: 13-1811 Opinion Date: January 13, 2014 Judge: Hamilton Areas of Law: Criminal Law Valdez pled guilty to possessing heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and admitted responsibility for 700 grams of heroin. Given the amount of heroin he acknowledged, he faced a statutory minimum of five years in prison and a statutory maximum of 40 years, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)(i). In applying the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court held him accountable for more than three kilograms and imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 140 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the drug quantity finding violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, that the finding was based on unreliable evidence, and that the court failed to address an argument he made in mitigation against undue reliance on drug quantity. http://j.st/trR View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Cureton Docket: 12-1251 Opinion Date: January 13, 2014 Judge: Williams Areas of Law: Criminal Law Under surveillance, Cureton sold crack cocaine to a confidential informant who used recorded bills. A marked bill was found in Cureton’s wallet during a warrant search of Cureton’s home. Cureton’s fingerprints were found on a bag containing pistols and on the scale found at the location a controlled buy. Cureton had also used a gun to steal $9,500 from one of his customers, who reported the robbery. Knowing that the police had visited his home in his absence, Cureton instructed his roommate to bring $9,000 in cash to a park. The roommate failed to do so and Cureton kidnapped her, assaulted her, held a gun to her to her head, and demanded that she call relatives to obtain cash. Her relatives contacted police. Cureton was convicted of attempted extortion and interstate communication of a ransom request, and three counts of drug distribution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that, in light of overwhelming evidence, any error in admitting evidence that Cureton had obtained the cash by robbing drug customers at gunpoint was harmless. The court vacated one of two 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1) convictions for using a firearm in connection with a violent felony; both were based on the same conduct—Cureton pointing a gun at his roommate and demanding she make calls to obtain money. http://j.st/trX View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

Daily Opinion Summaries U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals - #criminal Law, #Labor and #employment #rights,

Coleman v. Hardy Docket: 12-2000 Opinion Date: January 8, 2014 Judge: Williams Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law In 1981, a drug dealer (TJ) was shot to death in his Chicago home; the gunmen stole a necklace and ring with the initials “TJ” written in diamonds. Witnesses did not know the gunmen and provided general descriptions. On the day of the crime, they viewed mug shots but did not identify TJ’s murderer. During police interviews, Wright stated that on the day of the murder he was trying to coordinate a drug deal with TJ, that he took two men (one was Coleman) to TJ’s house on the night of the murder and that Coleman had tried to sell him TJ’s jewelry. About two weeks after the murder, witnesses separately viewed a lineup that included Coleman and six others. Two identified Coleman. A third witness did not make any identification. The witnesses later viewed another lineup and identified Barnes as the other perpetrator. Coleman and Barnes were tried together, with separate counsel. The Seventh Circuit reversed denial of Coleman’s first habeas petition, stating that the facts could potentially demonstrate actual innocence. On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and concluded that Coleman had not satisfied the actual innocence standard. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Coleman’s evidence that two eyewitnesses were unable to place him at the scene of the crime was not enough to overcome the testimony of two eyewitnesses who identified Coleman as the perpetrator and another who implicated Coleman in the murder. http://j.st/tu5 View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

Markadonatos v. Village of Woodridge Docket: 12-2619 Opinion Date: January 8, 2014 Judge: Stadtmueller Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Woodridge enacted an ordinance that imposes a $30.00 booking fee on any person subject to a custodial arrest and collects the fee without any hearing. It does not offer an opportunity to challenge the deprivation or seek reimbursement. Markadonatos was charged with retail theft. He was booked and Woodridge collected its fee. A court sentenced Markadonatos to supervision, which he successfully completed. He therefore received an adjudication of “not guilty” on his record. He sued, on behalf of himself and all arrestees who have been charged the fee, arguing that the lack of a procedure to challenge the fee violated their procedural and substantive due process rights (42 U.S.C. 1983). The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that the procedural due process argument failed based on balancing the private interest in the $30; the risk of erroneous deprivation and probable value of additional safeguards; and the government’s interest, “including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Markadonatos lacked standing under a substantive due process claim; he was arrested for cause and was adjudicated not guilty only after completing a term of supervision after admitting the factual basis for the charges. http://j.st/t6H View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. O'Malley Docket: 12-2771 Opinion Date: January 8, 2014 Judge: Tinder Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Environmental Law, Real Estate & Property Law, White Collar Crime An asbestos survey showed that the Kankakee building contained 2,200 linear feet of asbestos‐containing insulation around pipes. The owner hired Origin Fire Protection, to modify its sprinkler system. O’Malley, who operated Origin, offered to properly remove the pipe insulation for a cash payment ($12,000) and dispose of it in a lawful landfill. O’Malley provided no written contract for the removal work, but provided a written contract for the sprinkler system. O’Malley and Origin were not licensed to remove asbestos. O’Malley hired untrained workers, who stripped dry asbestos insulation off the pipes using a circular saw and other equipment provided by O’Malley. The workers were given paint suits, simple dust masks, and respirators with missing filters. They stopped working after inhaling dust that made them sick. Asbestos insulation was packed into garbage bags and taken to abandoned properties and a store dumpster. The Illinois EPA discovered the dumping; Superfund contractors began cleanup. O’Malley attempted to mislead federal agents. O’Malley was convicted of removing, transporting, and dumping asbestos‐containing insulation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the government did not prove the appropriate mens rea for Clean Air Act violations. O’Malley argued that the government was required to prove that he knew that the asbestos in the building was a regulated type of asbestos. http://j.st/t6D View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

Alexander v. Casino Queen Inc. Docket: 12-3696 Opinion Date: January 8, 2014 Judge: Flaum Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law Alexander and Rogers, African‐American women who formerly worked as cocktail waitresses for Casino Queen, claimed race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. Their allegations were based on reassignments to less-lucrative floor areas; discipline with respect to absences, tardies, breaks, and eating at work; and requests for days off. The district court granted Casino Queen summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed as to the hostile work environment claim, but reversed as to the race discrimination and retaliation claims. The plaintiffs presented adequate evidence that the floor assignments constituted an adverse employment action. http://j.st/t6X View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

Daily Opinion Summaries U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals -

United States v. Rucker Docket: 13-1297 Opinion Date: December 31, 2013 Judge: Kapata Areas of Law: Criminal Law Based on his participation in a mortgage fraud scheme, Rucker was convicted of one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 and sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment, one year of supervised release, and payment of $73,488.95 in restitution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Rucker’s claim that the district court erred in refusing to allow him to impeach a testifying co-defendant with evidence of that co-defendant’s 2000 conviction for theft concerning a program receiving federal funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(A), for which she received a sentence of five years’ probation. The conviction, more than 10 years old, had little probative value, given that the witness had admitted pleading guilty to 11 counts and that her plea agreement contemplated that the government would move for a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 in exchange for her truthful testimony. http://j.st/tmh View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Dosen Docket: 13-2223 Opinion Date: December 31, 2013 Judge: Posner Areas of Law: Criminal Law Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit a robbery affecting interstate commerce, a violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), and to carrying firearms in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A), based on a plan that, armed with guns, the conspirators would rob a truck used by marijuana traffickers to transport cash from Illinois to California, buy marijuana, and haul it back to the Chicago area. The conspirators lost the truck in traffic and were unable to complete the robbery. The district judge sentenced the defendant to 30 months for the conspiracy plus 60 months on the firearms count, the statutory minimum and required to run consecutively to the conspiracy sentence, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). Another conspirator, guilty of the same offenses, received an identical sentence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a challenge to the judge’s addition of two levels to the base offense level for conspiring to subject the robbery victims to physical restraint under U.S.S.G. 2X1.1(a), 2B3.1(b)(4)(B). Conversations recorded by a government informant had revealed that plan. The court also upheld refusal to reduce the base offense level by three levels because the conspiracy did not come to fruition as a substantive crime, U.S.S.G. 2X1.1(b)(2). The conspirators were “dangerous people,” so there was little doubt that they would have attacked the truck, “with mayhem a likely result.” http://j.st/tme View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals - Daily Summaries - Justia

Planned Parenthood of WI v. Van Hollen Docket: 13-2726 Opinion Date: December 20, 2013 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Health Law, Medical Malpractice In 2013, the Governor of Wisconsin signed into law a statute that prohibits a doctor, under threat of heavy penalties, from performing an abortion unless he has admitting privileges at a hospital no more than 30 miles from the clinic in which the abortion is performed. Wis. Stat. 253.095(2). Planned Parenthood and others challenged the law under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court entered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court noted that the seven doctors affected by the law had applied for, but after five months, had not been granted, admitting privileges; that all Wisconsin abortion clinics already have transfer agreements with local hospitals to facilitate transfer of clinic patients to the hospital emergency room. A hospital emergency room is obliged to admit and to treat a patient requiring emergency care even if the patient is uninsured, 42 U.S.C. 1395dd(b)(1). Had enforcement of the law, with its one-weekend deadline for compliance, not been stayed, two of the state’s four abortion clinics would have had to shut down and a third clinic would have lost the services of half its doctors. http://j.st/t36 View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

Charleston v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of IL Docket: 13-2081 Opinion Date: December 20, 2013 Judge: Flaum Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law Charleston began his fourth year at the College of Medicine in 2010, having finished his Obstetrics and Gynecology clinical rotation in June. In September, Charleston’s preceptors submitted a complaint, asking that Charleston be required to repeat the rotation, alleging that Charleston had committed errors in written work (including plagiarism), did not complete quizzes until after the rotation’s conclusion, did not have required signatures in his case log, spent four weeks without a preceptor, and he did not perform well enough to pass. The Student Progress Committee held a meeting; Charleston was not permitted to attend, but submitted a letter. The Committee recommended that Charleston be assigned a mentor in the future. Without notice to Charleston, the complaint and Charleston’s letter were forwarded to the Executive Committee with a new letter from Hall, Associate Dean for Student Affairs for the College of Medicine, alleging that in 2008, Charleston had acted “unprofessionally” while serving as a teaching assistant. Charleston had no opportunity to address Hall’s allegation, which, he claims, was false. The Executive Committee decided that Charleston should be dismissed. Internal appeals failed. His suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection violations, was dismissed for failure to plead sufficient facts to establish a protected property interest in his continued education, nor to demonstrate that the university singled him out for unfavorable treatment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. http://j.st/t3Q View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

Garcia v. Colvin Docket: 13-2120 Opinion Date: December 20, 2013 Judge: Posner Areas of Law: Health Law, Injury Law, Public Benefits Garcia, previously a construction worker and then age 40, applied for social security disability benefits in 2010, claiming abdominal pain caused by cirrhosis of the liver, severe low platelet count, hepatitis C, and an umbilical hernia, all of which had been diagnosed by several physicians that year. All were caused or exacerbated by alcoholism, but he stopped drinking and alcoholism is no longer a “contributing factor” barring him from obtaining disability benefits, 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(C). An ALJ ruled that Garcia is capable of doing limited sedentary work. The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that Garcia would be a candidate for a liver transplant, but was not on the list because he was too sick for surgery. His platelet count was too low to for even a liver biopsy. Garcia has been repeatedly hospitalized and treated for pain with morphine and other opium derivatives, with limited success. He has lupus, anemia, colitis, anxiety and other psychological problems, and chronic fatigue. One physician described Garcia’s condition as “chronic and terminal.” The court stated that Garcia is “one of the most seriously disabled applicants for social security disability benefits whom we’ve encountered in many years … We are surprised that the Justice Department would defend such a denial.” http://j.st/t3Y View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Doss Docket: 13-1001 Opinion Date: December 20, 2013 Judge: Ripple Areas of Law: Criminal Law Doss organized an identity theft ring, was indicted for, and pleaded guilty to, possessing with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(3); possessing, with intent to defraud, 15 or more counterfeit and unauthorized access devices, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(3); and aggravated identity theft, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1). The district court sentenced him to 78 months’ imprisonment on the first two counts and further sentenced him to a mandatory, consecutive two-year sentence on count three. The Seventh Circuit vacated his sentence. The district court committed plain error in imposing a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(11)(B), for “trafficking of any … unauthorized access device or counterfeit access device,” which resulted in an increased sentencing range on the grouped counts. Application Note 2 to section 2B1.6 precluded that increase for trafficking in unauthorized access devices because, under the facts presented here, that trafficking constituted a “transfer … of a means of identification.” http://j.st/t3N View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar