Xlera, Inc. v Focus Nutrition, LLC

Xlera appealed the attorney fee award to Focus. The panel reversed in part and vacated and remanded in part. It held that the dismissal in this case did not create a physical judgment, but, Xlera failed to raise this point below and the recent United States Supreme Court Microsoft decision only applies in the class action setting and thus Focus is not prevented from seeking fees under rule of Civil Procedure 54. It reversed the award under the Lanham Act as Focus was not a prevailing party as the case was dismissed, there was no consent decree or other reservation of judicial power to enforce any order or agreement and the fact that the district court questioned the strength of Xlara’s case was insufficient to allow the fee award here. It vacated the award under Utah’s truth in advertising act as Utah law requires a case by case determination of who is the prevailing party and the district dour failed to apply the factors set out in Utah case law and it additionally erred in awarding fees for work done on the federal claim as those are not authorized under the Utah act. It also ordered that Focus must submit additional evidence to allow the reasonableness analysis required by Utah law.

United States v Hull

Hull appealed imposition of a supervised release condition that he provide notice to others of risks he poses. The panel affirmed. It held the condition was not unconstitutionally vague as it merely requires Hull to given notice when directed to do so by a probation officer and at sentencing the district court outlined circumstances when notice would be appropriate given Hull’s criminal record. It held there was no unconstitutional delegation of judicial authority as the district court outlined when notice must be given and ordered notice be given when the identified risks arose. It finally held the notice requirement was not an occupational restriction as it does not prohibit Hull form any jobs and limits disclosure to situations when the risk involved justifies it.

United States v Young

Young appealed a reckless endangerment sentencing enhancement. The panel affirmed holding evidence Young threatened to shoot police and refusing to surrender after his car tires were flattened by a spike strip were sufficient to trigger the reckless endangerment enhancement and the fact that the standoff took place after the car came to a stop does not change the outcome as the guidelines includes actions which resist arrest and the standoff constitutes resisting arrest.

United States v Ibanez

Ibanez appealed his sentence. The panel affirmed holding that even if Ibanez was correct about a guideline argument, his sentence was reasonable under the factors in the sentencing statute and Ibanez did no challenge the statutory factor analysis by the district court.