"We hold that neither robbery, armed robbery, nor use of a firearm in the commission of a felony under Florida law is categorically a 'violent felony.'" That was the 9th Circuit, acknowledging a split with the 6-5 en banc 11th Circuit case that the blog discussed last week. HT: How Appealing.
I'm starting to think it would be more fun to practice out in California.
What do you all think about a judicial law clerk tweeting about a decision that his judge wrote while he was clerking. Here's a string from Andrew Case about the Apraio trial and his thoughts on the pardon.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
7 comments:
It is inappropriate. He says, I am not going to comment about my conversations with the Judge, but still leaks all sorts of personal details about him and what is on his desk, etc.
Inappropriate... he should've sent an anonymous email to his local federal blog. Isn't that what all good former clerks do?
Appropriate. JA is slandering his judge and he's defending his judge. When JA is making unfounded accusations and threats against the judge, I'm glad the clerk is steppng up.
How can robbery, etc., not be a violent felony. I hate the conservative crappie we get in the Eleventh, but seriously, if you commit a robbery or armed robbery, you are committing a violent felony. As for firearm in commission, I agree with the 9th.
So 11:52 we should base a person's sentence of what a crime is called?
The 9th circuit decision created and acknowledged a split with the 11th circuit's decisions in Fritts/Seabrooks/Lockley, not with the 11th circuit's more recent 6-5 en banc decision in Vail-Bailon (which dealt with felony battery, not robbery).
The 9th Circuit decision also touched on two issues that have divided the SD FL. The court held that:
1. A movant has a claim under Johnson if the record is unclear under which ACCA clause was used; and
2. In assessing harmlessness the 2255 looks at the current state of the law.
Post a Comment