United States v Verdin Garcia

Verdin-Garcia and two other inmates appealed the denial of their respective motions for a recued sentenced arguing the district court judges erred in not addressing all their nonfrivolous arguments. The panel affirmed in all three cases holding that district court judges are required by statute to consider the factors in 18 USC 3582(a) and certain guidelines statements, but, there is no requirement to address all the arguments made in support of a motion to reduce a sentence and an explanation of the rationale for decision is sufficient to allow appellate review.

Kerr v Hickenlooper

Kerr, other legislators and other officeholders and citizens sued to overturn a Colorado imitative requiring voter approval of tax increases. The district court found Ker had standing and thus was upheld by the 10th circuit on appeal. The United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded based on a decision involving the Arizona legislature challenging a redistricting initiative. Applying that decision, the panel reversed and remanded. It held that under the Arizona case, only legislative bodies in their institutional capacity have standing to challenge initiatives which diminish the powers of the legislature as a body, Kerr and the other legislators only alleged an injury to the institution and did not bring suit on behalf of the legislature as an institution and thus they lack standing. The panel declined to rule on the standing of the other plaintiffs or whether the political question doctrine applied as these were outside the scope of the interlocutory appeal order and left these issues for the district court to analyze in the first instance.