March 23, 2019

Archives for March 31, 2011

Support Your Favorite Dancing Bar Star and Metro Volunteer Lawyers

The theme for the annual Barristers Benefit Ball, which benefits Metro Volunteer Lawyers, is Dancing with the Bar Stars. Yes, you read that right. Four leaders of Colorado’s legal community will compete in a dance-off to be named “Top Bar Star,” but the real winner will be Metro Volunteer Lawyers, which is celebrating its 45th year of providing free and low-cost legal services to people in need.

The lawyers will be judged on their dancing skills, but you can give them a boost by donating now. Each dollar you donate puts your favorite dancer one vote closer to the big win! And all donations benefit Metro Volunteer Lawyers.

Cyndy Ciancio: Learn more about Cyndy or donate now!

John Moye: Learn more about John or donate now!

Vicki Johnson: Learn more about Vicki or donate now!

Hubert Farbes: Learn more about Hubert or donate now!

Note: The 2011 Barristers Benefit Ball has sold out, but the Denver Bar Association is exploring ways for people to attend. If you don’t yet have a ticket, check back with the DBA for options.

Tenth Circuit: Opinions, 3/30/11

The Tenth Circuit on Wednesday issued two published opinions and eight unpublished opinions.

Published

In Licon v. Ledezma, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner challenges a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy that denies him eligibility for an early release program because he was convicted of felon in possession charges; Petitioner contends that the policy is arbitrary by categorizing every inmate convicted of firearm possession charges as violent offenders. However, the Court concluded that the BOP’s public safety rationale is reasonably discernible and therefore it is not arbitrary and capricious to categorize prisoners convicted of firearm possession as violent offenders.

In United States v. Rausch, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision and sentence. Petitioner appeals his sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, contending that the district court “denied him his right to allocution at sentencing by never asking him personally whether he would like to speak before imposition of sentence.” Because Petitioner did not object to the purported violation of his allocution rights at the revocation hearing, his objection now is reviewed for plain error, or that which affects Petitioner’s substantial rights. The Court found no such plain error to warrant remand; Petitioner has not put forth what he would have said prior to sentencing that would have mitigated his sentence and the two-year sentence was not an abuse of discretion, as the increase beyond the Guidelines reflects the court’s acknowledgment of its prior leniency which was repeatedly disregarded by Petitioner.

Unpublished

United States v. Nolan

Gonzales v. Ledezma

United States v. Jimenez-Valenia

United States v. Huff

Fruitt v. Astrue

United States v. Caraway

Pesik v. Holder, Jr.

Parkhurst v. Lampert