By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 16, November 2017

Kamar v. Sessions, No. 16-3750 (MERRITT, Moore, Rogers).

Kamar v. Sessions, No. 16-3750 (MERRITT, Moore, Rogers). Petitioner, who was born in Jordan but is a citizen of Lebanon, overstayed her student visa in the United States. She was charged removable in 2007, and filed an application for withholding of removal pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act and protection under the Convention Against Torture. She argued that if she returned to Jordan, under Islamic tradition she would be subject to an “honor killing” by her youngest male relative… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 15, November 2017

Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, et al., Nos. 17-3577/3578/3579/3804/3805/3821/3822/3825/3826/3827 (THAPAR, Sutton, Donald).

Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, et al., Nos. 17-3577/3578/3579/3804/3805/3821/3822/3825/3826/3827 (THAPAR, Sutton, Donald). Members of the gym Global Fitness sued the gym as a class, arguing that the gym misrepresented the terms of its membership. The gym settled, and agreed to pay $1.3 million to the class members, class counsel’s fees, and the claims administrator’s fees and costs. The payments owed to the class members had been put into escrow, but the gym funneled $10.4 million of sale proceeds to… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 15, November 2017

Williams v. U.S., No. 17-3211 (ROGERS, Moore, Merritt).

Williams v. U.S., No. 17-3211 (ROGERS, Moore, Merritt). Petitioner pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and was declared an Armed Career Criminal subject to a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence because he had three prior convictions for violent felonies, including a conviction for felonious assault in Ohio. He filed this habeas petition challenging his sentence in light of U.S. v. Johnson, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which struck down the residual clause of the Armed Career… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 02, November 2017

Paul Flannery Invited to Participate on a Panel Discussing Everyday Antitrust Issues

Paul Flannery was invited to participate on a panel to provide his insights on the topic of Everyday Antitrust Issues: Protecting Your Business From Criminal and Civil Liability. Paul's topics included (1) antitrust basics, and some of the most common and easily avoidable ways that even the smallest companies can run afoul of the competition laws; (2) Antitrust implications of participation in trade associations, and tips for conducting association business in compliance with the law; and (3) New Department of… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 27, October 2017

U.S. ex rel. Ibanez v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., No. 16-3154 (McKEAGUE, Kethledge, Stranch).

U.S. ex rel. Ibanez v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., No. 16-3154 (McKEAGUE, Kethledge, Stranch). The relators filed this qui tam False Claims Act claim against two pharmaceutical companies, alleging that the companies participated in a complex, nationwide scheme to improperly promote the antipsychotic drug Abilify, which caused false claims to be submitted to the government. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the qui tam claims, and denied the plaintiffs an opportunity to file a third amended… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 27, October 2017

U.S. v. Rucker, No. 16-6415 (KETHLEDGE, Cook, Donald).

U.S. v. Rucker, No. 16-6415 (KETHLEDGE, Cook, Donald). The defendant violated the conditions of his supervised release, and the district court sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment, in part because the sentence would allow him to qualify for the Bureau of Prisons’ residential drug-abuse program. The defendant appealed the sentence, arguing that it was substantively unreasonable because it was based on an impermissible factor—rehabilitation. The Sixth Circuit agreed, vacated the sentence, and remanded. The Court noted that sentencing courts cannot… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 27, October 2017

U.S. v. White, No. 15-5793 (GRIFFIN, Gilman, Stranch).

U.S. v. White, No. 15-5793 (GRIFFIN, Gilman, Stranch). After a narcotics officer watched the defendant sell marijuana to an undercover informant in the driveway of the defendant’s home, the officer sought a search warrant for the residence based on the witnessed drug deal, a confidential tip that the defendant was selling marijuana from the residence, the defendant’s previous drug offenses, and the fact that the defendant keeps pit bulls “at his residence.” The judge issued the search warrant, and the… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 27, October 2017

Perreault v. Smith, No. 16-1213 (SUTTON, Clay Rogers).

Perreault v. Smith, No. 16-1213 (SUTTON, Clay Rogers). In this habeas petition, the petitioner argues that his statement “Well, then let’s call the lawyer then ‘cause I gave what I could” was an invocation of his right to counsel and required the police to stop questioning him. The Sixth Circuit considered whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent in holding that the statement was “akin to [a] negotiation[],” and was not an unequivocal request for… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 26, October 2017

Wilson v. Sheldon, No. 16-3981 (DONALD, Sutton, Thapar).

Wilson v. Sheldon, No. 16-3981 (DONALD, Sutton, Thapar). In 1993, police found a woman unresponsive and bleeding from the head. A bloody, 110-pound boulder was lying near the body. The police collected evidence, including the boulder, and classified the case as a felonious-assault investigation. The woman later died from her injuries, but the police neglected to change the case’s classification to “homicide,” and therefore the evidence was destroyed after the statute of limitations for felonious assault ran. Over a decade… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 26, October 2017

U.S. v. Haroon, No. 16-3440 (SUTTON, Donald, Thapar).

U.S. v. Haroon, No. 16-3440 (SUTTON, Donald, Thapar). The defendant was convicted of knowingly procuring his citizenship contrary to law by making false statements in immigration documents. He appealed, arguing that the district court misinstructed the jury when it instructed that the government must “prove facts that raise a fair inference that the material false statement, if disclosed, would have made the person ineligible,” but then stated that the government need not show that the false statement “would more likely… Read more