Farmer v Banco Popular of North America

Farmer appealed a sanction order against him imposed for bad faith conduct after entering a settlement. The panel affirmed, but, modified the amount. It held the district court had jurisdiction to issue the sanction as the case as till open. It held that Farmer’s failure to make payments under the agreement, seeking changes and prolonging the case justified a finding of bad faith, the district court’s method of calculating the award was correct and the party’s agreement to waive attorney fees and costs could not restrain the district court’s inherent authority to impose sanctions to induce compliance with its orders. The panel found that a small amount of fees and costs were attributable to an earlier appeal and thus should not have been awarded. The panel ordered the clerk of court to initiate a formal disciplinary proceeding against Farmer based on his behavior and the disrespectful content of his brief.

Eldridge v Berkebile

Eldridge field a habeas petition arguing he did not receive credit for time served between sentencing hearings and his sentence was vindictive. The district court denied his petition. The panel affirmed. It first held that because Eldridge was convicted and sentencing the DC Superior Court, he is a state prisoner. The panel rejected a certificate of appealability as Eldridge did In fact receive credit for time served and he receive the same aggregate sentence at the second hearing as the first and the second sentence reflected a burglary he was not previously punished for separately.

McInerney v King

McInerney sued King under 42 USC 1983 alleging violation of her fourth Amendment rights when king entered her house without a warrant. The district court granted summary judgment to King based on qualified immunity. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that King personally violated the fourth Amendment by his entry into McInerney’s house without a warrant and without exigent circumstances and the fact he followed the lead of another, more experienced officer does not change that conclusion. The panel held that there were no exigent circumstances as King was at the house to serve a summons, did not hear a disturbance, there were no reports of guns or gunfire in the area, observed the house for a half hour with no sign anyone was in the house let alone in need of assistance and there was no physical evidence of a break in or theft. It also rejected officer safety as a ground to affirm as officers cannot create their own exigent circumstances. It finally held that the law on exigent circumstances was clearly established at the time of the entry and qualified immunity thus did not apply.