On Remand From The Supreme Court

Sorry for the lack of posts but it has been hectic lately. Regardless, a new decision by the Sixths today prompted me to need to post again. On remand from the Supreme Court, a panel of the Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s below-guidelines sentence. In United States v. Funk, Judge Batchelder and District Court Judge Bell found that, regardless of the abuse of discretion standard announced in Funk’s companion cases of Gall and Kimbrough, a below guideline sentence was unreasonable. In Mr. Funk’s case, he was deemed a career offender by the Guidelines with a then mandatory range of 262 to 327 months. The district court initially imposed a sentence at the low end of this Guideline range, but that sentence was later reversed and remanded for consideration in light of Booker. At the resentencing, the district court determined that a sentence in line with that Guideline was too harsh, and it eventually sentenced the defendant to 150 months. Taking into account the appropriate standard of deference–greatest respect or closer review–did the district court abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence of only 150 months when the advisory Guidelines range was 262 to 327? 8. So the district court abused it’s newly found discretion by going down in the sentencing range.

Reaction within India has been more vociferous, with commentators calling on the government to act. “People are saying openly that foreign law firms should now be allowed into India,” says Kaviraj Singh, the secretary general of the Indian National Bar Association (INBA). Singh is appreciative of efforts being taken by India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which has held meetings with stakeholders, including the INBA. He says that officials at the joint secretary and additional secretary levels routinely host meetings to discuss the opening of the market. The INBA, which claims more than 10,000 members, has consistently welcomed the entry of foreign law firms and sees it as an important tool for capacity building and providing employment opportunities for young lawyers. In-house counsel are also making their voices heard. ] the entry of foreign law firms should be allowed as international law advice is a critical part of global business today,” Sameer Chugh, the head of legal at Airtel, told India Business Law Journal.

As you will note from the post below, the 2018 primary season is already underway — can you believe it? 2018 campaign season here, too, aren’t we? It was a tough election for a lot of sitting judges, slated candidates, and male candidates generally. In contested countywide judicial races, six candidates already sitting as judges pursuant to appointment by the Illinois Supreme Court, all slated by the Democratic Party, three male and three female, tried to hold their seats. Only four did, including each of the female candidates. The Democratic Party carried only four of the eight candidates it slated in countywide judicial races. Still, it did better than the Tribune. In the eight contested countywide judicial races, only three candidates backed by the Tribune were successful. And it was arguably worse for men, slated candidates, and appointed judges in contested races in the Subcircuits. In the 1st Subcircuit, both of the judges, both slated by the Democratic Party, one male and one female, were rejected by the voters. Judge Maryam Ahmad was defeated by Jesse Outlaw; Judge Anthony E. Simpkins was defeated by Rhonda Crawford.

Crawford did not participate in the bar screening process; Outlaw did not participate in the CBA screening process, but was rated qualified, recommended or better by each of the Alliance bar groups. Simpkins and Ahmad were both endorsed by the Tribune. In the 2nd Subcircuit, slated candidate Travis Richardson, who had strong bar ratings and the Tribune endorsement, lost to D. Renee Jackson, a candidate who did not participate in the bar screening process. Actually, Richardson finished fourth, the only male candidate in a field of four. The two contested races in the 5th Subcircuit departed from the New-Year-of-the-Woman script: Associate Judge Leonard Murray beat Jameika Mangum. Murray had the Tribune’s support, but so did appointed Judge Robin D. Shoffner — and she lost to Daryl Jones. Judge Anna Loftus beat the slated candidate in the one contested 6th Subcircuit vacancy; she did have the Tribune’s backing. The Tribune backed Judge Patricia S. Spratt, who won her contested 7th Subcircuit race over a crowded field that included the Democratic Party’s slated candidate, Jennifer Ballard.

Judge Jerry Esrig was slated and endorsed by the Tribune and faced only one challenger, another male. He won his 9th Subcircuit race. Judge Eve Reilly was not slated initially, but she wound up slated when the originally-slated candidate withdrew. She did not enjoy the Tribune’s endorsement in her 10th Subcircuit race, but she finished first in her four candidate race. There were two men running against her and one woman. Judge Reilly’s nearest competitor was the other female candidate. Judge Marc Martin faced one male challenger and one female in his 11th Subcircuit race. He enjoyed the advantages of incumbency, the Tribune’s endorsement, and the backing of the Democratic Party. He finished second to Catherine Ann Schneider. Two of the three slated Democrats running in the 12th Subcircuit won their contested primary races. James E. Hanlon, Jr. had only one male opponent. The other successful slated Democrat, Janet Cronin Mahoney, also had just one male opponent. Both Hanlon and Mahoney were endorsed by the Tribune.

But the Democratic Party’s slated candidate in the race for the 12th Subcircuit Kazmierski, Jr. vacancy, Louis G. Apostol, had two female opponents, and one male. Associate Judge Marguerite Anne Quinn grabbed nearly 45% of the vote in that race; Jennifer Bae finished second with nearly 31%. Quinn had the Tribune endorsement. There were two contested Republican primary judicial races, one in the 12th Subcircuit, one in the 12th and one in the 13th Subcircuit. Steven Kozicki won his race in the 12th Subcircuit, while Kevin O’Donnell won in the 13th. Kozicki did have the backing of the Tribune. O’Donnell had neither the Tribune nor Republican Party slating. If you’re keeping score at home, just as in the countywide races, only four of the judges appointed to their seats by the Illinois Supreme Court successfully navigated the electoral process. But in the subcircuits, it was only four of eight; countywide, it was four of six.

Six of the eight Supreme-Court-appointed judges running in contested subcircuit races were slated (if Shoffner counts as slated, which I think she does, though I never had official confirmation). Of the six slated, only two, Esrig and Reilly, won. And Reilly was not the Democratic Party’s first choice; the party’s originally slated candidate withdrew. The two sitting judges who ran without the official backing of the Democratic Party, Loftus and Spratt, both won, and both are female. The Tribune actually did better than the Democratic Party in the subcircuits: Eight candidates endorsed by the newspaper won their respective subcircuit primary races, including one of the two Republicans receiving the Tribune’s nod. That means the winner of the newspaper’s endorsement also won in seven of the 13 contested Democratic primary races. Is there a single explanation for the results this election year? All of the observers I’ve talked with have emphasized the strong turnout this year.

The total turnout numbers are truly staggering. In Cook County, almost 1.2 million voters took Democratic ballots this year (1,197,073), while another 314,537 voters took Republican ballots. By comparison, the total number of Democratic ballots taken in Cook County in 2014 was only 285,728 (169,922 Republican ballots). Of course, 2014 was not a presidential year. In the most recent presidential election year, 2012, voters took 440,873 Democratic ballots in Cook County, while 200,750 voters took Republican ballots. The 2008 primary provides a better comparison; that was the last time the presidential circus pulled into town without the outcome in both parties being already decided. And, no surprise, turnout was darn near as high in 2008 as in March of this year: 1,086,984 Democratic voters and 179,464 Republican voters took ballots in Cook County eight years ago. But, in 2008, the Democratic Party carried six of its nine slated candidates to victory in contested countywide primaries, as opposed to only four of eight this year. And, in 2008, as in 2016, several appointed judges had trouble holding their seats in contested subcircuit elections. But, as the old saying goes, all politics is local. In Cook County, politics is so local, it’s often personal. The overall picture is not changed by looking at some of these individual stories, but perhaps the strength of the trends can be explained, at least in part, by examination of some of the stories involving individual campaigns. More on some of these in my next post.

There are certain tenets made by the Wild Life Protection Act of India and National Tourism Policy of India. The Supreme Court straightforwardly blames the Tourism for the failure of Project Tiger India. It also uprights Tourism sector for the condition of tigers. The decline in the percentage of tigers in the country is because of the poaching and habitat loss. The stern decision of the Supreme Court will badly affect 53 Reserves and 17 states of India. The deep impact of the court’s decision is on the large number of people who were engaged and earn their living. The joblessness of a huge majority of people whose source of income is generated from the tourism services, will adversely affect the family life. Apart from the natural rain dependent agriculture people were able to make out from tourism areas which provided them an average living standard and a better life to their children.

Madhya Pradesh is such a state where the state generates its major share of income from the wildlife tourism. The accommodation providers along with the lower level workers like the park guides, safari vehicle drivers, vegetable sellers, shop keepers, laundrymen, carpenters, masons etc. were badly infected as the only source of living was lost forever. The stake holders across the country have forwarded a request to modify the decision. It is the shear waste of time to blame the tourism instead of progressively working towards the conversion of tigers. It is really a matter of shame that the Supreme Court and NTCA hold the same opinion. With the technological advancement in the private sector the conservation of the tigers in degrading. The court should justify the importance of tourism industry so as to define the management plans and introducing the strategy for the development of the lands of the zones with the Tiger Reserve areas. New guidelines has been prepared and proposed by the National Tiger Conversion Authority of India (NTCA) will benefit the accommodation providers who are specially reside in the Tiger Reserve zones. There is a huge possibility that the guidelines will have a positive result. Although the holiday resorts are outskirts of the Tiger Reserve areas and there are chances that they are not subjected to the new laws proposed to the government. Always see the brighter sides and have positive attitude towards whatever you do and hopefully by the coming month things will go normal. These issues catch fire due to the aggressive media and these issues fulfil the political motives to conquer a particular state or constituency. There is a high possibility to receive modified response to the proposal as brilliant lawyers are seeing to this matter.

Sunil Kumar & Anr. Appellant by making a signal, whereupon she started running. He also bit the lip of the Appellant. “1. The age of the prosecutrix was about 10 years. There was a cut injury on the lower lip and a swelling on the upper lip. There was an aberration of 3 x 5 cms in the waist. 1. The hymen was freshly ruptured and it was bleeding. Appellant was also seized. Respondent No.1 vide Ext.P-17. 10-14 years by PW-9 Dr. Anil Pratap Singh upon X-Ray examination. Sections and sent for trial. No.1, nor the village that he belonged. Respondent No. 1-Accused was unable to speak. Respondent No. 1 was found in pursuance of such complaint. 4 and 6 had failed to identify Respondent No.1. Section 3(2)(V) was otherwise made out. 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court therefore dismissed the revision. Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Section 3(2)(V) of the Act.

Ban On Registration Of New Vehicles In Bangalore — Does It Really Make A Difference? Deepika And Ranveer Bangalore Reception: All You Need To Know! Have You Visited These Saltwater Lakes Of India? New Delhi, Sep 25: The Supreme Court has said that there is no bar on lawmakers practising in courts during their tenure as legislators. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra said that there is no bar under the Bar Council of India rules to debar legislators from practising in court. The court also said that MPs and MLAs are not full time paid public servants and hence there can be no restriction from them practising. In April the Bar Council of India had said that lawmakers will be allowed to practise as advocates. The BCI however said that those who move an impeachment motion against any judge of the higher judiciary will not be allowed to appear before that particular court.

I SPENT 18 years in prison for robbery and murder, 14 of them on death row. I’ve been free since 2003, exonerated after evidence covered up by prosecutors surfaced just weeks before my execution date. Those prosecutors were never punished. Because of that, prosecutors are free to do the same thing to someone else today. I was arrested in January 1985 in New Orleans. I remember the police coming to my grandmother’s house — we all knew it was the cops because of how hard they banged on the door before kicking it in. My grandmother and my mom were there, along with my little brother and sister, my two sons — John Jr., 4, and Dedric, 6 — my girlfriend and me. The officers had guns drawn and were yelling. I guess they thought they were coming for a murderer. All the children were scared and crying. They took me to the homicide division, and played a cassette tape on which a man I knew named Kevin Freeman accused me of shooting a man.

He had also been arrested as a suspect in the murder. A few weeks earlier he had sold me a ring and a gun; it turned out that the ring belonged to the victim and the gun was the murder weapon. My picture was on the news, and a man called in to report that I looked like someone who had recently tried to rob his children. Suddenly I was accused of that crime, too. I was tried for the robbery first. My lawyers never knew there was blood evidence at the scene, and I was convicted based on the victims’ identification. After that, my lawyers thought it was best if I didn’t testify at the murder trial. So I never defended myself, or got to explain that I got the ring and the gun from Kevin Freeman. And now that I officially had a history of violent crime because of the robbery conviction, the prosecutors used it to get the death penalty. I remember the judge telling the courtroom the number of volts of electricity they would put into my body.