Supreme Court - Sliplists, 555 U. S., Part 1

555 U. S., Part 1

Moore v. United States, 555 U. S. ___ (2008) (per curiam)

R001; No. 07-10689; 10/14/08. In light of the District Court’s comments indicating it lacked discretion to impose a sentence below that suggested by the United States Sentencing Guidelines for Moore’s conviction of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute, the Eighth Circuit should have remanded the case for resentencing under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U. S. ___, ___, in which this Court concluded that a sentencing judge may consider the disparity between the Guidelines’ treatment of similar amounts of crack and powder cocaine.

Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, 555 U. S. ___ (2008) (per curiam)

R002; No. 08A332; 10/17/08. Because respondent Ohio Republicans are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether private litigants may bring an action to enforce §303 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to justify the District Court’s issuance of a temporary restraining order directing petitioner Ohio Secretary of State to update Ohio’s Statewide Voter Registration Database to comply with §303, this Court grants the secretary’s application for a stay and vacates the TRO.

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. ___ (2008)

R003; No. 07-1239; 11/12/08. The preliminary injunction restricting the Navy’s use of “mid-frequency active” sonar during training exercises is vacated to the extent challenged by the Navy, whose need to conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to the threat posed by enemy submarines plainly outweighs plaintiff environmentalists’ ecological, scientific, and recreational interests in marine mammals.

Bell v. Kelly, 555 U. S. ___ (2008) (per curiam)

R004; No. 07-1223; 11/17/08. Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.

Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U. S. ___ (2008) (per curiam)

R005; No. 07-544; 12/2/08. This habeas case is remanded for a determination whether a flaw in the jury instructions at respondent’s criminal trial “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict,” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 623.

Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U. S. ___ (2008)

R006; No. 07-562; 12/15/08. Neither the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act’s pre-emption provision nor the Federal Trade Commission’s actions in this field pre-empt respondents’ state-law fraud claim, which alleges that petitioners fraudulently advertised their “light” cigarettes as less harmful than regular cigarettes.

Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U. S. ___ (2009)

R007; No. 07-6984; 1/13/09. Where a state court grants a criminal defendant the right to file an out-of-time direct appeal during state collateral review, but before the defendant has first sought federal habeas relief, his judgment is not “final” for purposes of 38 U. S. C. §2244(d)(1)(A)—which sets a 1-year time limitation for a state prisoner to file a federal habeas petition—until the conclusion of the out-of-time direct appeal, or the expiration of the time for seeking certiorari review of that appeal in this Court.

Chambers v. United States, 555 U. S. ___ (2009)

R008; No. 06-11206; 1/13/09. Illinois’ crime of failure to report for penal confinement is not a “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U. S. C. §924(e), which provides a 15-year mandatory minimum prison term for a defendant, convicted of possessing a firearm, who has three prior convictions “for a violent felony,” defined as a crime that, inter alia, “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” §924(e)(2)(b)(ii).

Herring v. United States, 555 U. S. ___ (2009)

R009; No. 07-513; 1/14/09. The exclusionary rule does not require suppression of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment where police mistakes leading to an unlawful search are the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the search rather than systemic error or disregard of constitutional requirements.

Oregon v. Ice, 555 U. S. ___ (2009)

R010; No. 07-901; 1/14/09. In light of historical practice and the States’ authority over administration of their criminal justice systems, the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial guarantee, as construed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296, does not inhibit States from assigning to judges, rather than to juries, the finding of facts necessary to the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences for multiple offenses.

Search Tip: Use the binocular icons to search within PDF documents.

(To view PDF files) Adobe Access PDF to HTML conversion

Last Updated: January 14, 2009
Page Name: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/sliplists/s555pt1.html