United States v Williston

Williston appealed his murder conviction. The panel affirmed. It held Williston’s motion to suppress his grand jury testimony was properly denied as grand jury witnesses are entitled to be warned of their right to not self-incriminate, which was done here, but are not entitled to Miranda waring of right to remain silent as the United states Supreme Court rejected such warnings and Williston’s status as incarcerated on suspicion of different charges than the ones before the grand jury did not change the outcome particularly as in interrogations in prisons do not automatically trigger Miranda warnings. The panel argued that accepting Williston’s argument would effectively gut grand jury investigations as the witnesses with the knowledge of criminal activity are often incarcerated on other charges. It rejected Williston’s 6th amendment claim holding grand jury investigations do not trigger the right to counsel and thus failure to provide an attorney at Williston’s appearance did not violate 6th Amendment. It held there was no error in admitting prior acts of temper and violence towards the child victim as it was relevant to motive of resentment towards the child, the probative value was substantial and the district court gave a limiting instruction. It held there was no abuse of discretion is the detract court’s denial of Williston’s motion to show omitted portions of a recorded interview with police as those portion were not needed to prevent unfairness, Williston rejected the offer to show the entire interview and efforts to get the desired statements in through cross examination were properly shut down as end runs around the hearsay rule. The panel finally reused to extend the ban on life sentences for minors convicted of murder to Williston who was a little over 18 when the crime occurred.

Marlow v The New Food Guy, Inc.

Marlow sued Food Guy alleging wage violations as Food Guy retained all tips. The panel affirmed. It held the Fair Labor Standards Act only bars retention of tips when an employee is paid less than minimum wage, Marlow was paid $12 an hour which exceeds the minimum, Food Guy did not invoke the tip credit under tea Act and thus Food Guy was not barred from retaining all tips. It held that a Department of Labor regulation requiring employers to give all tips to employees did ton change the result here as the regulation was invalid as the statutory language is clear and thus there was no gap to fill and no authority to promulgate the regulation.

United States v Valdez-Aguirre

Valdez-Aguirre appealed hiss entice arguing violation of his right to allocate. The panela affirmed. It held that there was no plain error here even though the district court may have announced an intention to impose a sentence before hearing allocution because circuit precedent rejected plain error arguments in a published opinion and affirmed in an unpublished opinion in similar situations and thus any error would not have been plain at eth time of sentencing.

Leatherwood v Allbaugh

Leatherwood appealed the denial of his due process habeas claims and sought a certificate of appealabilty on his other habeas claims. The panel, with one member adding a concurrence, affirmed. It first held Leatherwood properly brought his action under 28 USC 2241 under circuit precedent as he only attacked the revocation of a suspended sentence rather than attacking the underlying conviction and sentence and review is de novo. It held that Leatherwood’s procedural due process claim that he lacked fair warning that a romantic relation while incarcerated could result in revocation failed as he was warned at his first revocation hearing that continuing his relationship with a woman who had minor children could result in further revocation and at the second revocation hearing Leatherwood acknowledged failing to break off his relationship violated the rules of his suspended sentence and Oklahoma case law also put Leatherwood on notice violations while incarcerated can result in further revocation. It held the fair notice also defeated Leatherwood’s claim the second revocation was unfair. The panel denied certificates of appealablity on the other claims as he presented no evidence of judicial bias and the investigation of the second revoking judge happened after the revocation hearing and there were no errors proven dn thus no cumulative error. Hartz added a concurrence arguing that claims like Leatherwood’s should be brought under 28 USC 2254 with narrower review as the circuit rule has no textual support and is an outlier among the decisions of federal appeals courts on the issue.