Three weeks after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Booker, the Sixth Circuit issued a published opinion discussing the appropriateness of remand and discussing “plain error” in the context of Booker claims. United States v. (David) Oliver, 397 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. Oliver’s Guidelines had been increased 2-levels at sentencing for obstruction of justice. In reviewing the elements of plain error analysis, the Court found, first, that error had occurred since a Sixth Amendment violation had increased Oliver’s sentence higher than it otherwise would’ve been. But, see, United States v. Moore, No. 04-5054 (6th Cir. In United States v. McMahan, No. 03-6271 (6th Cir. The necessity of remand is not based on a Sixth Amendment violation per se, but also on the fact that the district court should have the opportunity to impose sentence under a non-mandatory scheme. In United States v. Gorostieta, No. 04-1786 (6th Cir. BOP granting an early furlough. Nor is a sentence at the bottom of the range necessary for a remand for re-sentencing. 9 n. 2 (6th Cir.
8. Eventually, when called to the counter, hand your papers to the clerk, who would stamp the original and put it aside, then stamp the copies and return them to you. 9. Send the file-stamped copies to opposing counsel. It turns out my particular motion was too large for one “envelope.” So I had to submit two. The motion and some of the exhibits went into one, and the rest of the exhibits, and the proof of service, went into the second. The envelopes were submitted at 3:17 and 3:19 a.m., according to email acknowledgements I received. Now I knew better than to expect any response to this filing until business hours and, given the size of the document, I fully expected to wait into Friday afternoon for my file-stamped copies. But Friday came and went, with no response. Monday afternoon, though, I got the word: One envelope was accepted — and one envelope was rejected.
Another box was marked “Returned Comments.” It stated:Please put the attorney code in the cross reference section. No rejection comment was provided. Please contact the court into which you are filing for more information. You had better believe that I did figure out how and where to put my attorney ID number. I did it exactly the same way on the other “envelope” too. And that one was accepted. The only difference between the two envelopes was that the motion itself was in one envelope, and that was the one rejected. Now I had chosen not to schedule this motion for hearing, mainly because it is already set for hearing. But I wondered, as I vainly perused both the Odyssey and Circuit Court Clerk websites looking for a number at which to contact the court whether that might have been the problem. I eventually found a help number for Odyssey.
The lady with whom I spoke there was very nice. She seemed to think that I had to specify both my attorney code and the calendar number on which my case was pending in order to successfully file the motion. OK — I thought — new system, directions not very clear, but I’ll go along with the program. The nice lady in Texas walked me through the process of copying the contents of the rejected “envelope” into a new envelope and how and where to specify the motion calendar in addition to my attorney code. The new envelope was cast into the wine-dark sea of Odyssey within 41 minutes of my receipt of the rejection email. The rest of Monday afternoon passed without further word. And all of Tuesday. Late Wednesday afternoon I got a call from someone in the Clerk’s office. She was reviewing the renewed filing. And she was about to reject it. I wasn’t supposed to put the motion calendar in at all when I wasn’t scheduling the motion for hearing. Let me interrupt this narrative here for an important statement:I realize this is the Internet and people here seem incapable of making any rational distinctions.
But I must try. I’ve been working with people in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County since Morgan Finley’s time. The people with whom I’ve dealt over the years — counter clerks, file clerks, courtroom clerks, the occasional supervisor — have all been wonderful, polite, professional people. I think this new efiling system is an abomination — but that in no way means that I think badly of those who have been, and continue to be, the front-line people in that office. These front-line employees in the Clerk’s office are just as much victims of this abysmal system as us lawyers and taxpayers. So in criticizing the efiling system, I am not heaping opprobrium on those who are stuck administering it. There is considerable blame to go around for this execrable excuse for an efiling system — but it does not fall on the Clerk’s front-line employees.
Please try, even though this is the Internet, to grasp that distinction. And now, back to the review. Cutting to the chase, the Clerk’s office employee rejected my filing a second time — then stayed with me on the phone while I copied the contents of the rejected envelope into now a third envelope. She stayed with me while I recited each step I was taking to perfect my filing — including getting that attorney code number in as directed (and as I’d done before). I hit send and still she waited with me until the new envelope showed up in her queue. She checked the new filing to make sure I had done all that I said I had done — and I had — and she told me that she was accepting the filing right then and there. Five days after this odyssey had begun. But I was not home yet.
The system still had to “process” the acceptance. Twenty-one and a half hours later I finally got my confirmation that the filing had been accepted. Oh, wait, that’s not what happened here at all, is it? But the appalling lag times are only part of the problem with this efiling regimen. Here is a redacted (and slightly marked-up) screen from Odyssey that was obtained after a pleading was accepted for filing. Note the arrows I added pointing to three download links. If these three links don’t produce identical copies of the exact same document, namely, the document submitted for filing, we have bigger problems than lag time. I am so far confident that this is not an issue. This is merely a dumb and dangerous screen arrangement. There should be one link, and one only, to the file-stamped copy of the document accepted. Can you imagine how the Sovereign Citizens will run with this one?
The Clerk’s Office has too much power to ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ documents. In the Old Days, one handed over one’s papers to the counter clerk, who stamped them and gave them back. There was no evaluation. About the only thing the clerks could screen for was whether the document required a fee. I’d sometimes get questioned about my attorney ID number — it’s a little unusual — but the clerk did not have the right to refuse to stamp my documents because he or she thought I’d gotten my ID number wrong. I’d just say ‘look it up’ — and sometimes they did and sometimes they didn’t. Remember I mentioned that we’d get back to Sup.Ct. Rule 137(a). Here is where it comes back: If I file a document, under the rule, I shoulder the risk that a court may find my document wanting. If it is sufficiently inadequate—so defective—so improper—I may wind up being sanctioned.
Perhaps some heightened scrutiny at the ‘virtual counter’ is an inevitable consequence of the explosion in the numbers of pro se litigants. If there’s no confidence that a filed pleading will be accepted, there will be other consequences as well. Take the example of an attorney with a PI case where the statute of limitations is looming. In the Old Days, we could negotiate right up to the last day for filing and, if unsuccessful, throw a complaint together in a nonce, scurrying over to the Clerk’s office at 4:25 p.m. Some of the friendly front-line employees might not be as friendly on such an occasion — but that’s understandable, right? What of the complaint that was in a timely-submitted envelope that is rejected for reasons not immediately clear? The resubmitted envelope will bear a later date, the date on which it was resubmitted. Are we not guaranteeing judicial review of the filing process on some unlucky case? And the case law that is out so far on this subject should terrify every Cook County practitioner. And that, gentle readers, is where we will pick up this discussion in our next installment.
For some reason, the mainstream media has been pushing “immigration” as a problem in search of a solution. Why this “smoke and mirrors” issue is being pushed so hard, in light of MORE sweeping legislation being passed by the 111th Congress like the Dodd-Frank Bill, is a bit disconcerting to me. For some reason, the mainstream media has been pushing “immigration” as a problem in search of a solution. Why this “smoke and mirrors” issue is being pushed so hard, in light of MORE sweeping legislation being passed by the 111th Congress like the Dodd-Frank Bill, is a bit disconcerting to me. The solution to immigration seems to be a self-evident one; simply allow any foreigner, without a criminal background, that is actively seeking work to stay here. Now please note, I am advocating freedom of entry and residency, and not “amnesty” or the granting of U.S. Anyone working here, that is producing or otherwise contributing to the overall economy should be able to freely.
If we had no welfare state, there would be few valid arguments against opening our borders, assuming the foreign citizens weren’t allowed to vote and they didn’t have a violent or fraudulent criminal history. However, if foreign citizens are allowed to vote, take food stamps, Social Security, “free” medical care, and “free” education, then there are some very serious conflicts of interest. Immigration is really a secondary issue. End welfare, Social Security, Medicare, the progressive income tax, the minimum wage, public education and the War on Drugs and you will end the enmity towards immigrants (assuming they aren’t violent criminals). Keep those institutions and you create bad incentives. The United States is almost unique in our “jus solis” heritage and in my mind it is a robust expression of individualism. It is a chance to break free of the chains of bloodlines, race, language. I do see the problems presented by the “anchor baby” (such an ugly term) issue but feel that the answer lies in ending welfare, not pursuing jus sanguinis. There are obscure arguments to be debated whether or not America adopted the ‘jus solis’ from the English common law tradition or not.
I’ve heard many of these arguments and personally find them unsatisfactory or convincing, especially with counter-factuals like Calvin Mores Case, 77 Eng. Border security is a GREAT idea but some sort of American version of the Berlin Wall certainly is not. Eliminate all of our wastefully entanglements in military foreign affairs and work for a strong military solution that protects our borders from terrorism, criminal immigrants, all enemies foreign and domestic, etc., without comprising our liberties. If those who are here illegally refuse to file for residency or a work visas, or have a criminal background that includes violence or fraudulent behavior, then yes they should be deported. If they aren’t criminals and have filed for residency or a visa and aren’t taking welfare, then no deportation. Shouldn’t we eliminate all discriminatory policies based upon race or any other arbitrary grouping and let people stand on their own individual merits? Shouldn’t we encourage the free movement of labor and capital across borders, especially in a financial crisis such as we find ourselves in? Have we forgotten that the Founding Fathers of The United States of America were immigrants? Shouldn’t we always welcome refugees and those seeking political asylum from totalitarian regimes? Have we forgotten that some of the greatest Americans of all time were immigrants (e.g., Albert Einstein and Nicola Tesla come immediately to mind)? Let’s drop our unfounded fears of those people who only want to enjoy the same freedoms that we do. Let’s support the free movement of labor and capital across borders! Please help me make a difference in Utah’s 3rd Congressional District, please donate to my campaign today! Problem.html or illegal immigration.
A: We do not charge any fee unless you collect as a result of your personal injury or Car Accident claim. A: We do not charge any fee unless you collect as a result of your personal injury or Car Accident claim. In the event that we are successful in obtaining a settlement for you we will be reimbursed out of pocket expenses. We typically refer medical malpractice and product liability claims to top Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys. Some Rhode Island Medical Malpractice Attorneys charge 40 percent for Medical malpractice cases. Q: Will you always pay out of pocket expenses up front in Rhode Island personal Injury cases? A: We almost always pay all out of pocket expenses and get reimbursed from the proceeds upon settlement or judgment. Q: What are normal and usual out of pocket expenses in a RI Personal Injury or Auto Accident Case? 750. Rhode Island Personal Injury Lawyers also have to pay for Medical providers to write comprehensive Medical reports. The costliest personal Injury expense is the cost of having Medical Doctors or experts testify at trial.
We do everything we can to limit case costs. For cases with lower values, we will discuss with you making reasonable choices regarding case costs. Q: What is the process of a Rhode Island Personal Injury Claim? A: We negotiate with the insurance company to get the best settlement possible. We exchange information with the insurance adjuster including proof of medical expenses, lost wages and proof of negligence. If we cannot reach an agreement with the insurance company that you are satisfied with, then we file a lawsuit. After a lawsuit is filed we may take depositions of important witnesses. Depositions usually take place in a lawyer’s office. The insurance company may request that our client be examined by a doctor selected by the insurance company. If the lawsuit cannot be resolved, the case will be scheduled for trial. At any point in time, a Rhode Island Personal Injury, slip and fall or car accident lawsuit may be settled.
Q: What is the value of my Rhode Island personal Injury claim? A: We assess and consider many variables in determining the value of your RI Car accident or Personal Injury claim. If Liability is uncertain then the value of the case will be lowered. Q: What if I live outside of Rhode Island? A: We do everything we can to accommodate out of State Clients in their Rhode Island personal Injury Claims. You may never need to actually come to Rhode Island. If you do need to visit Rhode Island it will usually be for a deposition, IME or trial. In Most cases clients never need to come to Rhode Island for their Personal injury case. Rhode Island Personal Injury Lawyer, David Slepkow will communicate with clients via, emails, fax and phone. David Slepkow is a Rhode Island RI Personal Injury Lawyer, practicing personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, insurance claims, automobile / auto / car accidents, and serious accidents. David has been practicing since 1997 and is licensed in Rhode Island (RI), Massachusetts (MA) and Federal Court. David Aggressively represents clients in Premises Liability, Slip and Fall, trip and fall, motor vehicle accidents and Personal Injury claims.
If you would like to contact us or the webmaster for any reason at all, you may contact or e-mail us. 5th Floor, SC-CA Building, Padre Faura St., Ermita, 1000 Manila. As part of our efforts to serve you better, we have enumerated below the various offices of the Supreme Court, as well as other offices we feel may be able to assist you with your queries. Should any of your concerns fall under the scope of the responsibilities of the offices below, we encourage you to contact them directly so that your concerns can be acted upon promptly. For example, if you would like to ask about anything pertaining to the Bar examinations (e.g., results, requirements, fees, etc.), please get in touch with the Office of the Bar Confidant. Through the OBC, the court conducts Bar Examinations (which now includes Shari’a Bar Examinations) to test whether an applicant for admission to the practice of law has the requisite ability and legal learning or intellectual qualifications or fitness.
In connection with disciplining lawyers, the OBC receives administrative complaints, processes and submits the same to the Court for appropriate action. The Chief of the OBC is known as the Bar Confidant, now occupied by Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa. The JRO takes charge of receiving, compiling, processing, and reporting all pleadings necessary for the proper adjudication of appealed judicial cases whether civil or criminal in nature as well as original actions properly belonging to the Supreme Court. The “pleadings” referred to are petitions, answers, comments, motions, replies, memoranda, manifestations, briefs and court records. Rejoinders and sur-rejoinders are no longer allowed under the rules. The chief of the JRO is Atty. The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) plans, recommends, and implements personnel management and development programs. The OAS has nine divisions: the Personnel Division, Training Division, Leave Division, Employee Welfare and Benefits Division, Complaints and Investigation Division, Records Control Division, Security Division, Maintenance Division, and Property Division.
The FMBO is tasked with all financial transactions of the Supreme Court including that of the OCA, all the Halls of Justice, the PhilJA, and the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. It prepares and processes vouchers to cover payment of salaries, allowances, office supplies, equipment, and other sundry expenses, utilities, janitorial and security services and maintenance and other operating expenses and issues the corresponding checks thereof. It prepares and submits to the DBM and Congress the proposed budget of the Judiciary including pertinent schedules for each year. Salary and policy loans with the GSIS and Pag-ibig are coursed through this Office. It prepares and submits consolidated financial statements and reports to COA, DBM, Treasury and Congress. It also takes charge of all financial transactions of the SC Health and Welfare Plan which include collections, deposits, disbursements as well as preparation of financial reports and bank reconciliations. The PIO’s primary task is to disseminate, as promptly and as widely as possible, news about the Supreme Court and its decisions and provide the public with judicial information in a manner that the general public can easily comprehend. At present, the spokesperson of the Supreme Court and Acting Chief of the PIO is Atty.
Ma. Victoria Gleoresty Sp. The MISO is the computer technology arm of the Supreme Court. It is tasked with providing technical expertise on the formulation of system design studies and application system development as well as support services on hardware maintenance. The goal is to support and guide the Court in establishing state-of-the-art information technology in its computerization efforts. It consults the Committee on Computerization on policies and implementation of new technology or improvement of systems already used either in the Supreme Court or in lower courts. Headed by Mr. Nestor U. Venturillo, the PMO was created by the Supreme Court to coordinate and manage the technical and administrative aspects of the judicial reform program implementation, particularly the implementation of the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR). The APJR contains a wide-ranging yet comprehensive set of reform projects and activities aimed at enhancing judicial conditions and performance for the improved delivery of judicial services.
Supreme Court Library Services, which assists the Chief Justice, Associate Justices, the officers and the lawyers of the Court in their legal research tasks. The OCA is tasked with the supervision and administration of the lower courts and their personnel. It reports and recommends to the Supreme Court all actions that affect lower court management, personal and financial administration and administrative discipline. Complaints against judges and court personnel are filed with this office. The OCA is headed by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez. His deputies are Deputy Court Administrators Raul B. Villanueva, Jenny Lind Adecoa-Delorino and Assistant Court Administrator Lilian Barribal-Co and Maria Regina Adoracion Filomena M. Ignacio. The primary role of the OAS is to provide prompt, efficient, effective and economical delivery of essential support services to all the lower courts. These support services encompass the management of personnel, leave matters, employees’ welfare and benefits, as well as the property and records management.