Woodson v McCullum et al.

Woodson appealed dismissal of his removed complaint under 28 US 1915(g) for failing to pay a filing fee. The panel reversed holding 1915(g) does not apply, as Woodson field in state court, not federal court, did not seek to proceed in forma pauperis and McCullum et al. burdened the federal courts with this case not Woodson.

United States v Mirabel

Mirabel appealed the denial of his motion to suppress and his drug convictions. The panel affirmed. It held there was no erro in denying the motion to suppress a the searching officer testified he knew the assault rifle being sought could fit in the space in the trunk he could not see, going into the vehicle to try and move the seats was a reasonable way to search and moving the armrest which exposed a package of cocaine was done as part of eth reasonable search. It held any error in limiting the scope of cross examination of a coconspirator was harmless given the recorded phone calls between Mirabel and the witness and officer observations and the extensive attack on the witness’ credibility during cross examination. It held the evidence presented was sufficient to support all the convictions, the crack cocaine destroyed in the case was destroyed pursuant to policy and Mirabel failed to identify any Brady material that was withheld.

Carney v Oklahoma Department of Public Safety

Carney appealed the denial of his constitutional challenge to Oklahoma’s sex offender identifying driver license. The panel affirmed. It held the appeal was timely based on the prison mailbox rule and that carney’s first Amendment claim was forfeited as he did not raise it at the district court and failed to explain how plain error applied at appellate stage. It held merely identifying Carney as sex offender on his driver license is not cruel and unusual as there is no risk of incarceration or physical harm. It finally held there was no 14th Amendment violation as treating aggravated sex offenders differently than other sex offenders was rational, the license requirement was rationally supported by public safety concerns and heightened scrutiny was not applicable given the narrow requirement here and the use of identification by governments in many contexts.

United States v Ailon-Ailon

Ailon-Ailon appealed the denial of his bail motion. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that the plain meaning of “flee” in 18 USC 1342(f) means volitionally running away not involuntary removal by immigration forces and this is reinforced by the bail act which does not excluded removable aliens form bail, set out a procedure to follow if a detainer is lodged and the fact the Department of Justice wants Ailon-Ailon to stay while Homeland Security wants him deported is an executive branch dispute which the judiciary will not resolve.

In re Sandridge Energy, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation (Elliot v Ward et al. and Sandridge Energy, Inc.; Hefner, objector)

Hefner appealed the denial of his objection to the settlement agreement and the denial of his motion for attorney fees. The panel affirmed. It held that there was jurisdiction over the suit based on diversity of citizenship, that the settlement agreement objection was moot based on Sandridge’s bankruptcy proceeding, and attorney fees were properly denied as his efforts were not causally liked to the settlement.

City of Eudora, Kansas v Rural Water District No. 4

District appealed the declaratory judgment that City can provide water service to certain customers. The panel affirmed holding District’s reaffirmation of certain federal loan guarantees was part for the same contractual transaction as the parties’ earlier suit over which would provide water service and thus City was entitled to judgment on claim preclusion grounds.

United States v Turrieta

Turrieta appealed his enhanced armed career criminal sentence. The panel affirmed. It held that New Mexico’s residential burglary statute meets the generic definition prosed by Turrieta, the case relied upon by Turrieta explains entering a fenced yard is not burglary and a New Mexico Court of Appeals decision limits residential burglary to houses not watercraft or other items and there is no evidence anyone has ever been convicted of residential burglary for entering a watercraft, vehicle or aircraft and thus Turrieta’s three residential burglary convictions trigger the enhanced sentence as enumerated offenses.