Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sigitas J. Banaitis
No. 03-907
Subject:
Resources:
Paul D. ClementFor Respondent Banks:
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
Russell R. YoungFor Respondent Banaitis:
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw
Chicago, IL
Philip N. Jones
Duffy, Kekel, Jones & Bernard
Portland, OR
Willard Stewart v. Dutra Construction Company
No. 03-814
Subject:
Resources:
David B. KaplanFor Respondent Dutra Construction Co.:
The Kaplan/Bond Group
Boston, MA
Harvey Weiner
Peabody & Arnold
Boston, MA
Tuesday, November 2
State of Florida v. Joe Elton Nixon
No. 03-931
Subject:
- applied an incorrect standard, contrary to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) and Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 120 S.Ct. 1029 (2000), by finding defense counsel ineffective per se under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) despite having found counsel's strategy not to contest overwhelming evidence of guilt but to vigorously contest the sentence in the defendant's best interest and reasonably calculated to avoid a death sentence, and
- erred in concluding that Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) prohibited trial counsel from adopting a strategy, after fully informing his client, without objection, not to contest overwhelming evidence of guilt to protect the best interest of his client in contesting the appropriateness of imposing the death penalty.
Resources:
Carolyn M. SnurkowskiFor Respondent Nixon:
Assistant Attorney General
Tallahassee, FL
Eric M. Freedman
New York, NY
Garrison S. Johnson v. James Gomez, et al.
No. 03-636
Subject:
Resources:
Bert H. DeixlerFor Respondents Gomez, et al.:
Proskauer Rose LLP
Los Angeles, CA
Sara E. Turner
Deputy Attorney General
San Francisco, CA
Wednesday, November 3
Gary S. Small v. United States
No. 03-750
Subject:
(g) . . . for any personIn the instant matter, Petitioner's only conviction occurred in Okinawa, Japan, and it was this Japanese conviction that served as the predicate felony in this 922(g)(1) prosecution. The Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the indictment arguing that foreign felonies were not intended to count as the term "in any court" means any court in the United States. The motion was denied. While the Third Circuit's affirmance of the lower court is consistent with a 1989 decision of the Fourth Circuit and a 1986 decision of the Sixth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit in 2000 and the Second Circuit, on August 27, 2003, held that foreign convictions do not count. Consequently, a clear conflict exists among the five Circuit Courts which have addressed the issue.
(1) who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year:
. . .
to possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm.
Resources:
Paul D. BoasFor Respondent United States:
Pittsburgh, PA
Paul D. Clement
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
Azel P. Smith, et al. v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, et al.
No. 03-1160
Subject:
Resources:
Thomas C. GoldsteinFor Respondent City of Jackson, Miss., et al.:
Goldstein & Howe, P.C.
Washington, DC
Glen D. Nager
Jones Day
Washington, DC
Monday, November 8
Gerald Devenpeck, et al. v. Jerome Anthony Alford
No. 03-710
Subject:
Under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness test, an arrest is deemed "reasonable" if there is probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred. Two judicial circuits find an arrest reasonable if, based on an objective assessment by a reasonable officer, there is probable cause to arrest for any offense. On the other hand, at least five judicial circuits find an arrest to be reasonable only if there is probable cause to arrest for crimes "closely related" to the crime or crimes articulated by the arresting officer. This case presents the following questions:Decisions:
- Does an arrest violate the Fourth Amendment when a police officer has probable cause to make an arrest for one offense, if that offense is not closely related to the offense articulated by the officer at the time of the arrest?
- For the purpose of qualified immunity, was the law clearly established when there was a split in the circuits regarding the application of the "closely related offense doctrine", the Ninth Circuit had no controlling authority applying the doctrine, and Washington state law did not apply the doctrine?
Resources:
Michael P. LynchFor Respondent Alford:
Assistant Attorney General
Olympia, WA
Randolph Stuart Phillips
Poulsbo, WA
Reginald Shepard v. United States
No. 03-9168
Subject:
Resources:
Linda J. ThompsonFor Respondent United States:
Thompson & Thompson, P.C.
Springfield, MA
Paul D. Clement
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
Tuesday, November 9
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, et al. v. Tommy G. Thompson, U.S. Secretary of Health and
Human Services, et al.
No. 02-1472
Tommy G. Thompson, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Cherokee Nation of
Oklahoma
No. 03-853
Subject:
- Whether the federal government can repudiate, without liability, express contractual commitments for which it has received valuable consideration, either by spending down discretionary agency appropriations otherwise available to pay its contracts, or simply by changing the law and the contracts retroactively.
- Whether government contract payment rights that are contingent on "the availability of appropriations" vest when an agency receives a lump-sum appropriation that is legally available to pay the contracts as is the law of the Federal Circuit under Blackhawk Heating or is the government's liability calculated only at the end of the year after the agency has spent its appropriations on other activities, as the Tenth Circuit ruled below.
- Whether the ISDA requires the Secretary to pay contract support costs associated with carrying out self-determination contracts with the Indian Health Service, where appropriations were otherwise insufficient to fully fund those costs and would require reprogramming funds needed for noncontractable, inherently federal functions such as having an Indian Health Service.
- Whether Section 314 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. No.105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 288, bars respondent from recovering its contract support costs.
Resources:
Lloyd Benton MillerFor Tommy Thompson:
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse,
Endreson & Perry, LLP
Washington, DC
Carter G. Phillips
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
Washington, DC
Paul D. Clement
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
David B. Pasquantino, et al. v. United States No. 03-725
Subject:
Resources:
Laura W. BrillFor Respondent United States:
Irell & Manella, LLP
Los Angeles, CA
Paul D. Clement
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
Wednesday, November 10
State of Illinois v. Roy I. Caballes
No. 03-923
Subject:
Resources:
Gary Scott FeinermanFor Respondent Caballes:
State Solicitor General
Chicago, IL
Ralph E. Meczyk
Law Office of Ralph E. Meczyk
Chicago, IL
Jill L. Brown, Acting Warden v. William Charles Payton
No. 03-1039
Subject:
Decisions:- Did the Ninth Circuit violate 28 U.S.C. 2254(d) when it found the California Supreme Court objectively unreasonable in holding that California's "catch-all" mitigation instruction in capital cases is constitutional as applied to post-crime evidence in mitigation?
Resources:
Andrea Natalia CortinaFor Respondent Payton:
Deputy Attorney General
San Diego, CA
Dean R. Gits
Deputy Federal Public Defender
Los Angeles, CA
Monday, November 29
John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. Angel McClary Raich, et
al.
No. 03-1454
Subject:
Resources:
Paul D. ClementFor Respondents Raich, et al.:
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
Robert A. Long
Covington & Burling
Washington, DC
Marlon Latodd Howell, aka Marlon Cox v. State of Mississippi
No. 03-9560
Subject:
Resources:
Andre de GruyFor Respondent State of Mississippi:
Jackson, MS
Judy Martin
Mississippi Attorney General's Office
Jackson, MS
Tuesday, November 30
David Whitfield v. United States
No. 03-1293
Haywood Eudon Hall, aka Don Hall v. United States
No. 03-1294
Subject:
Resources:
David Whitfield, pro seFor Petitioner Hall:
Coleman, FL
Thomas C. GoldsteinFor Respondent United States:
Goldstein & Howe, P.C.
Washington, DC
Paul D. Clement
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
Roderick Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education
No. 02-1672
Subject:
Resources:
Walter DellingerFor Respondent Birmingham Bd. of Ed.:
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
Washington, DC
Kenneth L. Thomas
Thomas, Means & Gillis, P.C.
Birmingham, AL
To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader