Honeycutt v. United States

Issues

Under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1), is a co-conspirator of a defendant who has been convicted of violating a federal drug law liable for the forfeiture of the crime’s proceeds, even if the co-conspirator was never in possession of them?

When a person is convicted of a federal crime, the United States government can often seize the property or proceeds obtained through the commission of the crime. Under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1), Congress mandates that a person who is convicted of a Chapter 13 federal drug crime must forfeit the “property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation.” It is unclear, however, whether the government can hold a co-conspirator of a drug crime liable to forfeit the proceeds of such violation when the co-conspirator never actually received any of the proceeds of the crime. Petitioner Terry Honeycutt argues that the statute only reaches the persons who have actually individually obtained the proceeds of the crime. The United States, on the other hand, argues that a co-conspirator of a federal drug crime under Chapter 13 is jointly-and-severally liable for the forfeiture of the crime’s proceeds, regardless of whether that person ever obtained the proceeds. The outcome of this case will determine the reach of the government’s seizure power under 21 U.S.C. § 853.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Under 21 U.S.C. §853(a)(1), a person convicted of violating a federal drug law must forfeit to the government “any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or
indirectly, as the result of such violation.”

The question presented is:

Does 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1) mandate joint-and-several liability among co-conspirators for forfeiture of the reasonably foreseeable proceeds of a drug conspiracy?

Terry Honeycutt was a salaried employee at his brother’s store where he oversaw sales and product inventory. United States v. Honeycutt, No. 1:12-cr-00144 at 2 (6th Cir. Mar. 4, 2016). In 2008, Honeycutt noticed that an increasing number of customers were purchasing Polar Pure, a water purification product that was being used to manufacture methamphetamine around the area.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Turner v. United States

Issues

What standard applies to the materiality of evidence withheld from criminal defendants by the government in order to assess whether a due process violation occurred, and should that standard differ based on the strength of the government’s case?  

This case will address whether certain undisclosed evidence falls under the standard for prosecutorial disclosures as described by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The defendants, Russell Overton and Charles Turner, were convicted of a murder that occurred in 1984 and contend that several pieces of evidence were improperly withheld by the prosecution, resulting in a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to due process. The United States asserts that the evidence in question does not fall within the scope of the Brady standard, and therefore no post-conviction relief is required. The outcome of this case will further articulate the standards of materiality, favorability, and suppression under Brady and elucidate what information a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to know before trial.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether petitioners' convictions must be set aside under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

Christopher and Charles Turner, Clifton Yarborough, Kevin Smith, Levy Rouse, and Timothy Catlett were convicted for the 1984 murder of Catherine Fuller. Turner v. United States, Nos. 12-CO-1362, 12-CO-1538, 12-CO1539, 12-CO-1540, 12-CO-1541, 12-CO-1542 & 12-CO-1543, at 14 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 2015).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Lee v. United States

Issues

When analyzing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, would it be irrational for a longtime legal resident of the United States to reject a plea offer and proceed to trial in the face of strong evidence of guilt when the plea would result in mandatory deportation?

Petitioner Jae Lee pleaded guilty to possession of ecstasy with the intent to distribute, an aggravated felony and deportable offense. Lee argues that he is entitled to Strickland relief because ineffective assistance of counsel prejudiced his case. The United States argues that, although Lee did experience ineffective assistance of counsel, he is not entitled to Strickland relief because it would have been unreasonable to seek trial in lieu of a guilty plea in this case. This case allows the Supreme Court to examine what Sixth Amendment constitutional relief is available to noncitizen United States residents that experience ineffective assistance of counsel resulting in mandatory deportation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

In the context of a noncitizen defendant with longtime legal resident status and extended familial and business ties to the United States, whether it is always irrational for a defendant to reject a plea offer notwithstanding strong evidence of guilt when the plea would result in mandatory and permanent deportation.

In 2009, Jae Lee, a legal resident of the United States, was charged with the possession and intent to distribute ecstasy. See Lee v. United States, No. 14-5369, at 2 (6th Cir. June 8, 2016). Following his lawyer’s incorrect advice, Lee pleaded guilty to the charges against him, not realizing at the time that he ran the risk of mandatory removal from the United States.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC

Issues

Does the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, define “where the defendant resides” for purposes of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)?

In 1957, the Supreme Court held in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp. that the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), was the “sole and exclusive” venue provision in patent infringement actions. After Congress amended the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, in 1988, the Federal Circuit in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co. held that the statutory amendments supplanted Fourco and § 1391(c)’s definition of a defendant’s “residence” applied to § 1400(b). In 2011, Congress amended the general venue statute again.

TC Heartland and its many amici argue that the 2011 amendments supersede VE Holding and reinstate Fourco, thereby restricting a corporate defendant’s “residence” to its state of incorporation. In contrast, Kraft maintains that the 2011 amendments bolster VE Holding’s conclusion that a corporate defendant “resides” wherever it is subject to personal jurisdiction. The Court’s decision about which venue definition is proper in patent infringement actions could significantly limit where defendants are eligible to be sued, thereby reducing forum shopping in patent infringement actions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions and is not to be supplemented by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).

TC Heartland is an Indiana limited liability company, headquartered in Indianapolis, which manufactures and sells liquid beverage enhancer products.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton

Issues

Does the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974’s “church plan” exemption apply to a pension plan maintained by an otherwise-qualifying church-affiliated organization, regardless of whether a church initially established the plan?

This consolidated case provides the Supreme Court with the opportunity to resolve a conflict over the application of the “church plan” exemption of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). The parties disagree over whether the exemption applies to a pension plan maintained by a church-affiliated entity but not established by a church. Petitioners Advocate Health Care Network et al. (“Advocate”) argue that historical evidence and the statutory text establish that the exemption covers pension plans created by church agencies in addition to plans created by churches themselves. Advocate contends that a contrary interpretation would invite impermissible government interference with and discrimination between religious denominations. Maria Stapleton and fellow Respondents (“Stapleton”) contend that the language and purpose of the “church plan” exemption illustrate that it was not meant to cover a pension plan that was not created by a church. Stapleton also asserts that exempting the pension plans of church-affiliated entities from ERISA violates the Establishment Clause and puts thousands of church-agency employees at risk of losing their retirement benefits. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) governs employers that offer pensions and other benefits to their employees. “Church plans” are exempt from ERISA’s coverage. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(33), 1003(b)(2). For over thirty years, the three federal agencies that administer and enforce ERISA—the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation—have interpreted the church plan exemption to include pension plans maintained by otherwise qualifying organizations that are associated with or controlled by a church, whether or not a church itself established the plan.

The question presented is whether ERISA’s church plan exemption applies so long as a pension plan is maintained by an otherwise qualifying church-affiliated organization, or whether the exemption applies only if, in addition, a church initially established the plan.

This case is a combination of appeals from United States Courts of Appeals for the Seventh, Ninth, and Third Circuits. The facts from each case are substantially similar. 

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon

Issues

Is international service of process by mail permitted under the Hague Service Convention?

In this case the Supreme Court will determine whether the Hague Service Convention permits parties to serve foreign defendants with process through the mail. Water Splash argues that Article 10(a) and surrounding provisions of the Hague Service Convention indicate that the term “send” was intended to include service of process by mail. Water Splash also asserts that sources beyond the text of Hague Service Convention portray this same intention. In opposition, Menon argues that the Hague Service Convention text unambiguously indicates that the word “send” does not include service of process, and the Court should not look to external sources where the text of the treaty is unambiguous.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

In 1965, the member states of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, including the United States, adopted a treaty known as the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Service Convention”). Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention states:

“Provided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with — (a) the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad[.]”

The question presented is:

Does the Hague Service Convention authorize service of process by mail?

Water Splash, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Champlain, New York. Menon v. Water Splash, Inc., No. 14-14-00012-CV at 2 (14th Cir. 2016).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

County of Los Angeles v. Mendez

Issues

Does a police officer violate the Fourth Amendment when the officer uses reasonable force in response to a hazardous situation the officer created, and does an injured individual’s actions that give rise to the need for use of force constitute an intervening, superseding event that severs the causal relationship between the police officers’ conduct and the individual’s injuries?

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether a police officer’s conduct leading up to her use of force against a citizen is relevant to the inquiry of whether that force was reasonable, and if so, what the limits are on holding that officer liable. The deputies of the County of Los Angeles argue that no liability should attach to their decision to open fire on Angel and Jennifer Mendez, because they were responding to the Mendezes’ threatening behavior. The Mendezes argue that the deputies provoked their threatening behavior, so they should be liable for opening fire on the Mendezes. The parties disagree as to whether the Ninth Circuit’s provocation rule, which would hold the deputies liable under the Fourth Amendment, conforms to Supreme Court precedent. A win for the deputies could promote police officer safety and help preserve the integrity of the qualified immunity doctrine by keeping standards of behavior clear. A win for the Mendezes could preserve the balance of protections for police officers and citizens and provide better incentives for officer reasonableness during every stage of an investigation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. The Ninth Circuit’s provocation rule holds officers liable under the Fourth Amendment for objectively reasonable force, vitiates qualified-immunity protections, and permits tort liability in the absence of proximate cause. Should this Court reject the provocation rule and continue to analyze police use of force under the established legal framework set out in Graham?
  2. The Court of Appeals held alternatively that the Deputies were liable for the shooting “under basic notions of proximate cause.” Did the court err in holding that the failure to secure a warrant proximately caused the shooting, particularly where the Deputies shot in reasonable self-defense after one of the Plain-tiffs pointed a gun at them and the outcome would not have changed if the Deputies had a warrant?

On October 1, 2010, a group of police officers and deputies were searching for a wanted parolee in a California neighborhood. See Mendez v. Cty. Of Los Angeles, 815 F.3d 1178, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2016); Brief for Petitioners, County of Los Angeles et al.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Impression Products v. Lexmark International

Issues

Does a “conditional sale” transferring title with post-sale restrictions on the use or resale of the item avoid the patent exhaustion doctrine, thus permitting a suit for infringement as a means of enforcing the post-sale restriction; and, does a foreign sale of a patented article exhaust the U.S. patent rights in that article?

The Supreme Court must decide whether Lexmark International, Inc., a company that manufactures toner cartridges for use in its printers, can use post-sale restrictions to prevent remanufacturers such as Impression Products, Inc., the defendant in this case, from refurbishing and reselling the cartridges. Petitioner Impression Products argues that under the patent exhaustion doctrine, all of a patent holder’s rights to a patented item are exhausted by the initial authorized sale of the item. Accordingly, Impression Products argues that the patent holder cannot place restrictions on how the patented article is used after its sale. Respondent Lexmark International, however, contends that Section 154(a) gives a patent holder authority to impose restrictions on the post-sale use of a patented item and allows a patent holder to transfer less than the complete patent rights to the buyer. Thus, a patent holder need not completely exhaust the patent after the sale. The ultimate decision by the Supreme Court may have an impact on the judicial doctrine of patent exhaustion and may potentially hinder the market for remanufactured patented goods. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

The “patent exhaustion doctrine”—also known as the “first sale doctrine”—holds that “the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item.” Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 553 U.S. 617, 625 (2008).

The questions presented are:

  1. Whether a sale that transfers title to the patented item while specifying post-sale restrictions on the article’s use or resale avoids application of the patent exhaustion doctrine and therefore permits the enforcement of such post-sale restrictions through the patent law’s infringement remedy.
  2. Whether, in light of this Court’s holding in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351, 1363 (2013), that the common law doctrine barring restraints on alienation that is the basis of exhaustion doctrine “makes no geographical distinctions,” a sale of a patented article—authorized by the U.S. patentee—that takes place outside of the United States exhausts the U.S. patent rights in that article.

Lexmark International, Inc. is a company that makes and sells toner cartridges compatible with its printers. Lexmark International, Inc., v. Impression Products, Inc., No. 14-1617 (Fed. Circuit Feb. 12, 2016) at 9. Lexmark owns several patents on the cartridges it produces.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Microsoft Corporation v. Baker

Issues

If plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice after defeat of a class certification, can a federal appellate court review a district court order denying class certification under both Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1291?

This case will determine whether a federal appellate court has appellate jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their individual claims with prejudice. Microsoft Corporation argues that a federal court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to review an order that denies class certification because it disregards the Supreme Court’s decision in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978), and impedes the discretionary review created by the Court in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). Microsoft also maintains there is no jurisdiction under the Constitution’s Article III’s mootness doctrine because a voluntary dismissal eliminates any adverse interests that the plaintiffs had in the case. Seth Baker et al. assert that the voluntary dismissal with prejudice created a final judgment allowing the federal appellate court to review the adverse class certification ruling under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Furthermore, Baker argues that there is no Article III barrier preventing appellate review in this case because the individual plaintiff’s claims were impaired by the ruling and they still maintain an adverse interest in the case. The outcome of this case could impact the procedures that plaintiffs must follow when seeking a class certification. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Does a federal court of appeals have jurisdiction under both Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice?

Respondents Seth Baker et al. allege that a design defect in Petitioner Microsoft Corporation’s Xbox 360 game scratched the disks required for playing the console. See Baker v. Microsoft Corp., 797 F.3d 607, 609 (Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Howell v. Howell

Issues

Does the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act preempt state domestic relations law when a veteran waives part of his military retirement pay in order to receive veterans’ disability benefits and an ex-spouse seeks to collect reimbursement for the resultant decrease in her court-ordered half of his retirement pay, as ordered at the time of divorce? 

Court below

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (“USFSPA”) overrides state domestic relations law. In deciding this matter, the Court will determine whether a divorced veteran, who waives a portion of the total allocated military retirement pay (“MRP”) in order to receive disability benefits, must reimburse an ex-spouse for lost MRP when there exists a divorce decree ordering the equal division of the full MRP between the parties. Petitioner John Howell argues that the USFSPA overrides an Arizona divorce court order granting fifty percent of his MRP to his ex-wife, Respondent Sandra Howell, as the parties agreed during their divorce, without regard for Mr. Howell’s subsequent disability waiver. Mr. Howell contends that, because the court order directly conflicts with the USFSPA and its objectives, the court order is not legally valid. Respondent Sandra Howell counters that the divorce court’s order is valid because there is no direct conflict between the order and the USFSPA. This case will clarify the scope of the Military Powers Clauses and the Supremacy Clause for cases involving veterans’ benefits and domestic relations issues that have been traditionally left to the states to regulate, such as divorce. This case will also address the effects on retired and active-duty military personnel as well as their ex-spouses in navigating disability payments, partially-waived MRPs, and divorce decrees that allocate a portion of pre-waiver MRP to the ex-spouse. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act preempts a state court’s order directing a veteran to indemnify a former spouse for a reduction in the former spouse’s portion of the veteran’s military retirement pay, where that reduction results from the veteran’s post-divorce waiver of retirement pay in order to receive compensation for a service-connected disability. 

Petitioner John Howell and Respondent Sandra Howell, residents of Arizona, divorced in 1991. See Brief for Petitioner, John Howell at 8. Mr. Howell, who was anticipating retiring from the Air Force shortly after the divorce, came to an agreement with Ms.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to