Judge Carnes on the Armed Career Criminal Act

Like him or not; agree with him or not; Judge Carnes is a gifted writer. From United States v. Rainer:

• This is yet another felon-in-possession case involving yet another variation on the issue of whether a previous conviction qualifies as a “violent felony” for purposes of the enhanced penalties provided in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
• Rainer’s non-frivolous contention is that the district court erred when it decided at sentencing that he qualified for an enhanced sentence under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), which applies to a defendant convicted under § 922(g) who has three previous convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses.
• The question is whether “building of Richie’s Shoe Store, Inc.”and “building of, to wit: Whiddon’s Gulf Service Station” in the indictments show that Rainer’s convictions were for burglary of a shoe store and service station, places that fall squarely within the scope of generic burglary.
• But a vehicle could not be used to carry on the business of a gasoline service station, which is mainly to dispense gasoline for sale. While a shoe store theoretically could be operated out of a vehicle, that possibility is too farfetched to undermine our conviction that Rainer’s two previous convictions were for burglary of a building in the generic burglary sense of the word.
• The ACCA is part of the real world, and courts should not refuse to apply it because of divorced-from-reality, law-school-professor-type hypotheticals that bear no resemblance to what actually goes on.

USAO adds to management team

I just received this announcement:

Eduardo I. Sanchez returned to the United States Attorney's Office on August 16, 2010, as Counselor to the U.S. Attorney in the Executive Division in Miami. Ms. Bowen, a veteran of the Office, will serve as the District Training Director. As Counselor to the U.S. Attorney, Mr. Sanchez will provide advice, analysis, and guidance on legal and policy issues, strategic planning, training, and other matters of district-wide significance.*** Assistant U.S. Attorney Dawn Bowen will serve as the District’s Training Director, effective September 1, 2010.

Ed and Dawn are both really good people; Willy is putting together a smart, respected team. Now we have to see if things are going to change...

Multiple Choice

Here are your choices this morning --

A. Read more about the Scott Rothstein case here.

B. Read more about the federal judicial openings here.

or

C. Watch the hilarious Jimmy Fallon intro to the Emmy's:

Wet Monday Mornings stink

How annoying -- US1 basically turns into a parking lot if there is the slightest hint of rain. Combine that with Monday morning. Ugh.

Anyway, we're almost to football season, and I'm thinking of betting against all of Rumpole's picks this year. I don't know what to make of this Dolphins. I'm trying to stay optimistic...

Miguel DeLa O is running the blog fantasy football league this year. If you want to play, email me or him. Alex Gomez (at Scott Srebnick's firm) beat me in the finals last year. I will get revenge this year.

Please let me know what's going on in the District -- it's pretty slow news wise. I've been wondering when the Federal JNC is going to announce that they are taking applications for the two open judicial slots... Will it be the same group of applicants or will the list grow because there are two openings? It'll be interesting.

And for the record, I believe you Paris.

Okay, well, that's your stream of consciousness this morning....

Fire at Tre downtown

Boy

I was about to write up this (unpublished?!) opinion by the 11th, but SFL beat me to it, as did the DBR:

During 14 years of litigation over his claims that he was denied a promotion because he is black, John Hithon has twice been awarded jury verdicts of more than $1 million. His case prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to say using the word “boy” to describe an African-American man could by itself be evidence of race discrimination. But Hithon and his lawyer have not persuaded the federal appeals court in Atlanta. On its fourth stop in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the case generated a 2-1 unsigned opinion sending the case back to trial court for judgment in favor of Tyson Foods. The split panel reaffirmed an 11th Circuit ruling concluding evidence of the use of the term “boy” — allegedly by a white poultry plant manager to address Hithon and another plaintiff — wasn’t enough to support a jury finding of racial discrimination. Hithon’s lawyer, Alicia K. Haynes of Birmingham, Alabama, said Circuit Judges Edward E. Carnes and William H. Pryor Jr., who ruled Aug. 17 over the dissent of a visiting senior judge, missed something in their review of the paper record of the case. “The concern is that any time you present that type of evidence, it is the jury who is listening to how those words are being said,” Haynes said. “They’re listening to the tone that was used in saying those words. They’re listening to the inflection. They are able to judge who the speaker was and what effect those words had on the person that it was being said to, and the appellate court is missing all of that. They are reading a cold, written record.”

Rothstein takes down Mafia player

Curt Anderon and Jay Weaver cover the story of the 4 year deal for Roberto Settineri. Jeff Weiner, Settineri's lawyer, had this to say:

"Our initial intention was to go to trial,'' Weiner said in an interview. ``My client had no criminal record. He was actively targeted and set up by Rothstein.
``But my client made a terrible mistake in judgment by agreeing to help Rothstein,'' he said, pointing out that the FBI's sting generated tape recordings and text messages incriminating his client. ``The bottom line, when the evidence came in . . . it would have been a foolish choice to go to trial at that point.
"[Settineri] took the bait, hook, line and sinker, to help someone he thought was a friend,'' the lawyer added. ``He was one of Rothstein's victims.''

Election night

Rumpole and JAABlog are covering your Dade and Broward elections. Even though I think judicial elections are ridiculous, it's still fun to watch the election results.

While you wait for the results, check out the new trailer for Square Grouper by the boys at Rakontur (who made The U and Cocaine Cowboys):



Finally, Efraim Diveroli is back behind bars, this time ATF nabbed him in Central Fla. He's still awaiting sentencing for the Miami conviction on the illegal Chinese ammo. The Complaint is quite a read.

First day of school

And there goes another summer...

This one seemed to go by really fast, no?

School shouldn't start in August. After Labor Day. That's the way it should be.

Enough about school. What's going on in the SDFLA?

1. Two Magistrates are up for reappointment -- Patrick White and Frank Lynch. Send in your comments if you want to be heard.

2. There isn't much time left to comment on the proposed 11th Circuit Rules. Rick Bascuas has some commentary here.

3. And of course, the King building needs drapes. You like the ones I picked?

4. More Rothstein indictments coming soon? (via DBR)

Should federal judges be writing books?

That's the question this Boston Globe article raises in light of Judge Nancy Gertner's new book, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate --

The 64-year-old Boston jurist said the book being published by Beacon Press focuses on her two decades as a prominent criminal defense and civil rights lawyer before she joined the bench in 1994. As such, she might not have to worry about the federal Judicial Code of Conduct, which prohibits judges from making public statements about cases that could come before them.
But by devoting a memoir to her years as an “unrepentant advocate’’ for notorious criminal defendants and women who brought sex-discrimination suits, Gertner will almost certainly give ammunition to those who say she tilts toward those litigants instead of prosecutors and corporations.
Gertner, whose sentences of criminal defendants have drawn criticism from federal prosecutors and who was accused of bias by lawyers defending the Boston police in a civil rights suit, said she is not worried.
“The unrepentant advocate stuff ends at my swearing-in,’’ she said, referring to the day in April 1994 when she officially became a judge.
She also emphatically denied that she is biased on the bench in favor of criminal defendants or people fighting corporations or police departments. Just last week, she noted, she dismissed a lawsuit by several customers of Bank of America, N.A., who al leged the bank engaged in deceptive business practices.
“I do believe my record speaks for itself,’’ she said in a telephone interview last week, adding that news outlets tend to cherry-pick rulings that reinforce the stereotype of her as a liberal.

**

Several lawyers who insisted on anonymity because they might have to appear before Gertner said a judge should not be an “unrepentant advocate.’’
In contrast, Harvey Silverglate, a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer and former law partner of Gertner’s, dismissed the notion that judges should be silent about their personal and professional backgrounds or even their views on jurisprudence. Judges, he said, had lives before they entered what he called the “monastery,’’ and it is foolish to pretend otherwise.
“Judges, like other human beings, have predispositions,’’ said Silverglate. “Some are called liberals. Some are called conservatives. To hide these facts doesn’t make them untrue. And so by encouraging judges to talk more, when you have a case before a judge, you have a better idea of what that judge might be interested in and what you might have to say in order to overcome that judge’s predispositions.’’
Asked whether the book will expose his friend to criticism, he said, “Of course. If your question is, ‘Will it expose her to legitimate criticism?’ the answer is no.’’
To be sure, Gertner is not the first sitting federal judge to write a book or even a memoir.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a critically acclaimed 2002 memoir with her brother called “Lazy B: Growing Up on a Cattle Ranch in the American Southwest,’’ that described her childhood in Arizona and New Mexico.
Richard A. Posner, an influential judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago and appointee of President Reagan, has written about 40 books on jurisprudence and legal philosophy, some of which plumbed current events. He also blogs and writes magazine articles.

Thursday news and notes

1. Rocket indicted.

2. Big opinion out of the 11th today on jury instructions -- a reversal for not providing the good faith instruction as requested by the defense. It's 67 pages and I haven't digested it yet, but here's the money quote:"The requested instruction properly placed the determination with the jury as to whether they acted in good faith in seeking advice, fully and completely reporting to their accountant, and acting strictly in accordance with the advice."

3. Joel DeFabio says his pimp (of Haitian descent) is being selectively prosecuted when compared to Jeffrey Epstein:

Johnny Saintil, a Fort Lauderdale native of Haitian descent, sits in jail awaiting a federal trial Monday on charges of recruiting two girls for an Internet-based prostitution ring in Broward County. The 28-year-old faces up to life in prison if convicted.
Jeffrey Epstein, a Palm Beach billionaire, ended his one-year probation last month after serving 13 months in jail on two state convictions for soliciting a prostitute who was a minor. He also had to register as a sex offender.
Epstein, 57, came within a whisker of being indicted by the U.S. attorney's office in Miami on essentially the same charges as Saintil -- but involving a much higher number of victims.
Now Saintil's defense attorney, Joel DeFabio, is urging a Fort Lauderdale federal judge to throw out the indictment against his client, arguing ``selective prosecution'' by prosecutors while citing the race and class differences between Saintil, a poor black man, and Epstein, a rich white man.
***
DeFabio points out that Epstein didn't just pay for sex with high school girls -- he also schemed with aides to recruit them for his personal pleasure.
``Epstein was both a pimp and a `john' (an individual who pays the prostitutes for sex),'' DeFabio said in court papers. ``He recruited and paid individuals to go out into the public and find minor girls to have sex with him for money.''
Two other defendants charged with Saintil -- Michael DeFrand and Stanley Wilson -- have joined his selective prosecution petition filed with U.S. District Judge William Zloch.
The U.S. attorney's office countered in court papers that DeFabio's claims are ``unfounded.'' A spokesman declined to comment.

Slow news day in the SDFLA...

...so we'll have to turn to Alabama, via CNN:

"Former Alabama prosecutor arrested on enticement, child porn charges"

Here's the quote from the former prosecutor's defense attorney:

"The facts of the case will turn out to be interesting and (we will) address those when we go to trial."

Interesting? Perhaps not the best choice of words... From the article:

A former Alabama assistant district attorney who specialized in prosecuting sex crimes against minors is accused of enticing what he thought was a teenage girl online for sexual purposes, authorities said.
Steven Giardini was indicted on charges of enticement and solicitation crimes over the computer with the intent to produce child pornography, the Alabama Attorney General's Office said in a statement. Giardini, a former prosecutor in Mobile County, was arrested Tuesday.
The charges stem from the suspect's alleged communication with what he thought was a 15-year-girl, Alabama Attorney General Troy King said in a statement Tuesday. But instead he was communicating with an agent from the FBI's Internet Crimes Against Children division.

More on Judge Huck

Last Monday, I posted about Judge Paul Huck's decision to take senior status. Today, the DBR has more on the story:

District Judge Paul Huck in Miami will take senior status at the end of the month, opening a third seat on the federal bench in South Florida. Huck is the second South Florida judge to announce he’ll take senior status in the past month. U.S. District Judge Alan S. Gold will be going senior in January. Public Defender Kathleen Williams has been nominated to replace U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley, but judicial confirmations are on a slow track in the U.S. Senate.

***

Huck, 70, was appointed to the bench a decade ago by thenPresident Bill Clinton, following a 36-year career as a lawyer. Huck said he is going senior because he is able to do so under the court’s “rule of 80.” Under the rule, when a judge’s age, added to his or her years on the bench, totals 80, the judge has the option of staying put, going senior or retiring. The judge receives the same pay for all options. Huck, who is known as one of the hardest-working judges on the bench with a penchant for moving cases to resolution, still plans on working full-time. But he hopes to help out busy districts in other states and to do more teaching at the law schools of the University of Miami and University of Florida — his alma mater — and in high school civics classes. Huck has been hosting high school students in his courtroom to teach them about civics and turned his hallway on the 13th floor of the Miami courthouse into a civics training area with enlarged copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. “I want to try some cases in some other places,” he said. “Some of our districts are overloaded with long trials and need help, such as in Houston. Plus, I’m getting old.”

***

Huck did say he wants to “allow the position to open up and bring another person on.” Huck also said his decision does not signify any frustrations with the job, saying: “This is the best job in the world. It brings me a great deal of satisfaction. I wrestled with this for awhile.”

In addition to all the comments about Judge Huck being hard-working, the guy is also a mensch. He tries to go to every bar function and to all the going-away parties for PDs and AUSAs. You can tell that he loves the law and being around lawyers.

"2 Hialeah businessmen busted for bilking Medicare for penis pumps"

That headline, from Jay Weaver's article, really says it all, doesn't it? More:

It's one thing that a pair of Hialeah companies were fraudulently billing Medicare for penis pumps at $395 a pop to supposedly help male patients combat impotence.
It's quite another that Charlie RX and Happy Trips also billed the federal healthcare program for vacuum erection systems to aid female patients battle erectile dysfunction, authorities say.
And what's even more remarkable: Medicare paid the two medical equipment providers $28,600 after they submitted a total of $63,000 in false claims for the erection pumps, according to charges unsealed Monday in federal court in Miami.

Happy Trips indeed.

I'm back

Thanks to my guest bloggers -- SFL, Rumpole, and Rick B.

Now back to work.... I hope everyone enjoys the last good week of traffic because school starts in one week and then US1 and I-95 turn back into parking lots.

A couple of quick hits to start your week:

1. Blago jury still out.

2. Justice Sotomayor jokingly compares herself to J.Lo.

3. Blogger convicted after three tries for threatening comments about federal judges.

4. Justice Ginsburg wants the good ol' days back in the Senate.

5. Justice Scalia OK after tripping.

6. Neal Katyal likely to become 10th Justice.

7. A must read dissent by Judge Kozinski on GPS tracking and the 4th Amendment. The intro:

Having previously decimated the protections the Fourth
Amendment accords to the home itself, United States v.
Lemus, 596 F.3d 512 (9th Cir. 2010) (Kozinski, C.J., dissenting
from the denial of rehearing en banc); United States v.
Black, 482 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2007) (Kozinski, J., dissenting
from the denial of rehearing en banc), our court now proceeds
to dismantle the zone of privacy we enjoy in the home’s curtilage
and in public. The needs of law enforcement, to which
my colleagues seem inclined to refuse nothing, are quickly
making personal privacy a distant memory. 1984 may have
come a bit later than predicted, but it’s here at last.

And the conclusion:

I don’t think that most people in the United States would
agree with the panel that someone who leaves his car parked
in his driveway outside the door of his home invites people
to crawl under it and attach a device that will track the vehicle’s
every movement and transmit that information to total
strangers. There is something creepy and un-American about
such clandestine and underhanded behavior. To those of us
who have lived under a totalitarian regime, there is an eerie
feeling of déjà vu. This case, if any, deserves the comprehensive,
mature and diverse consideration that an en banc panel
can provide. We are taking a giant leap into the unknown, and
the consequences for ourselves and our children may be dire
and irreversible. Some day, soon, we may wake up and find
we’re living in Oceania.

Let's Talk Judicial Appointments!

We might as well, since President Obama and Senator McConnell did the same the other day:

President Obama and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had their first one-on-one meeting today, and it dealt primarily with one topic: Confirming judges.
Or, more precisely, Republican holds on Obama judicial nominees.

"Right now there are 12 federal judicial nominees that have passed the Judiciary Committee with a unanimous vote," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said before the meeting. "There are other judges that have been through the process and approved by the Judiciary Committee."

The meeting concerned "a direct discussion about moving those judges," Gibbs said.

The president is "rightly frustrated" at a pace that is "unrivaled and unmatched in its slowness," Gibbs said, and he added that some recess appointments may be in the offing.

Hmm, that's not good.

According to ACS' nifty website judicialnominations.org, there are now 100 vacancies out of 867 seats on the federal bench.

So that's roughly 10 percent of the judicial branch, with nominees cooling their heels for indefinite periods while they await an uncertain fate in the Senate.

My guess is this will have some deleterious institutional effects on the federal justice system, but what do I know?

This is SFL, hoping I'm wrong (again).

Magistrate Judge Brown Addresses Futility of "Notices of Unavailability"

Judge Brown Notice of Unavailability

Hi kids, SFL here.

Regular readers of my blog know I have a special fondness for this case.

In an order entered yesterday, Magistrate Judge Brown addresses the rather pointless of practice of filing "notices of unavailability," a personal pet peeve of mine:

The parties should note that there is no local rule in our Court providing for the filing of same, and no federal rule supporting same.  While the Court is not precluding anyone from filing same, and as a matter of professionalism and courtesy they should be considered, the parties should understand that these filings have no legal significance.

He's right.

This is a dated practice of dubious utility.  If you have a conflict with an actual (as opposed to a possible or  hypothetical future) Court deadline, ask the Court to move it.  If you don't want the opposing party to schedule something while you're on vacation, pick up the phone and ask them about it.

D.O.M. called

“You haven’t posted anything.”
That was D.O.M. again, calling from wherever.
“Yup.”
“What about that case where Judge Altonaga got affirmed for asserting jurisdiction over the pre-WWII Germans?”
“Yeah, I saw that.”
“So, why not write something up, Professor?”
D.O.M. only busts out my title when things are dark, so I said,
“Well, you gave the blog over to the people who write comments.”
“I thought you didn’t read the comments.”
“I don’t.”
Beat.
“You’re being too uptight about this.”
That was D.O.M. breaking the silence.
“Maybe.”
Beat.

1600!!!

There's a certain honour with being the blogger to post the 1600th post on David O Markus's famous Southern District Of Florida Blog. And with DOM being out of town and unawares, we decided to grab the honour before he could change his mind and revoke our blogging privileges.

For those of you discriminating enough to read our own humble blog about the Richard E Gerstein Courthouse in Miami, you know that last week we promised- at the possible expense of Mr. Markus's standing in the community and his law license- to post a joke that started off this way: " A rabbi, a priest, President Obama and (insert your favourite federal judge here) walk into Tobacco road...."

But before we get to the punch line, there's this to consider:

Rumpole's person of the day:

Meet Former Jet Blue Flight Attendant Steven Slater. On a flight on Monday inbound to JFK from Pittsburgh, Mr. Slater had a confrontation with an unruly female passenger. (Side note- those gals from the Steel City can be quite a handful when they've had a few Iron City beers in them). Upon landing at JFK, Mr. Slater had all he could take. When the plane stopped taxing, Mr. Sater activated the emergency exit, deployed the emergency slide, grabbed a beer from the beverage cart, and slid off the plane and into instant fame. Mr. Slater got into his car and drove home to Queens where a few hours later a few members of New York's Finest showed up to arrest him on a slate of charges. For those of you who exclusively practice in Federal Court, The NY Times coverage is here.

For those of you who occasionally venture over to State Court, the NY Post coverage is here. (Headline was "Wing-Nut pleads not guilty.")

Punchline: They all walk up to the bar and order a round of beers. And the bartender looks up and sees who has walked in and says: 'what is this, some kind of joke?' "

Sorry folks, this is what happens when DOM goes on vacation.

See You in Court.

HR.

PS-if you want to know something useful about current federal legal developments, read South Florida Lawyer's post just below this one. We craftily waited until he posted number 1599 so we could grab 1600.

11th Circuit Limits "Safety-Valve" Sentencing Relief.

Hi kids, SFL here, killing time while David O undoubtedly does something glamorous and exciting I am sure.

I'm glad I don't do any criminal, because if I did I'd have to use the term "safety-valve" as part of my work.

Instead I'm stuck with delightful words and phrases such as "Celotex," "Iqbal," "Venetian Salami" and "mending the hold."

But for those of you who derive some kind of legal meaning from a safety valve, you may consider this new 11th Circuit opinion of value, which disagrees with several other circuits on this question:

The question we must resolve today is this one: can a district court grant safety-valve relief when reducing a defendant’s sentence pursuant to section 3582(c)(2)? The answer is “no,” because the safety-valve is inapplicable to sentence-modification proceedings.

Best I can tell, the 11th reasons that a Section 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not a "sentencing or resentencing" proceeding, but is instead a "modification of a term of imprisonment."
 
But then later there's a footnote in which the 11th acknowledges "they are in some sense a sentencing proceeding."

So I'm glad crim law makes as much sense as civil litigation?

Big news from the road

Judge Paul Huck has informed President Obama that he will be taking senior status. That makes three current openings; Judge Hurley (to be filled by Kathy Williams); Judge Gold; and now Judge Huck.

Judge Huck has been a wonderful district judge and is regarded as the hardest working judge in the District. I have lots more to say when I can get to a computer instead of this phone. In the meantime, congrats to Judge Huck.

Good luck to...

... Brian Stekloff, who after making a good name for himself at the PD's office, is off to Paul Weiss in DC.

They needed someone to try cases, and they found the right guy.

Straw buyers walk

Four of em... Before Judge D after an 11 day trial. Defendants repped by Phil Horowitz, Alan Kaufman, Brian Tannebaum, and John Wylie. Congrats.

Get ready for the guest bloggers

Taking a little break from the blog for a week. Starting tomorrow, you'll have SFL, Rumpole, and Rick Bascuas entertaining you. Enjoy.

Magistrate feels “like a schoolmarm scolding little boys."

The whole opinion is definitely worth a read. Here's a snippet:

• My practice is to preliminarily review every motion called an “emergency” the day it
  is filed. However, other cases, motions filed, scheduled hearings and settlement conferences do not afford me the luxury of dropping everything to hear a party’s perceived “emergency” especially when it involves a case that has already taken an inordinate amount of the court’s time (to the detriment of other litigants who need decisions in their matters) to resolve yet another in a series of routine discovery disputes. Thus, as the motion has worked its way up the tall stack of other matters on my desk, there are no longer any depositions to take.
• I am not the Maytag repairman of federal judges desperately hoping for something to do.
• Counsel for Plaintiff could not resist replying. Mr Kossack’s reply adds up the number of Mr. Cannon’s improper objections during Mr. McCurdy’s deposition and compares them to the number of improper objections Mr. Cannon accuses him of making. Not wanting to miss an opportunity to engage equally unseemly “tit-for-tat,” Mr Kossack pads his reply with gratuitous comments which include a reference to counsels’ respective choice of beverages during depositions.
• To ensure that reading the 185 pages of these exchanges was not a complete waste of time, I assigned this motion to a law student extern to prepare a legal memorandum to further his education. In a short period of time he was able to prepare a well-written, concise memo which identified a large number of state and federal cases throughout the country articulating the standards for making deposition objections and identifying improper conduct for which lawyers have been admonished or sanctioned. He correctly concluded that both lawyers engaged in misconduct which violated Rule 30(c)(2).
• The exchanges related in excruciating, repetitive detail in the moving and responsive papers and their attachments were painful to read. If I was an elementary school teacher instead of a judge I would require both counsel to write the following clearly established legal rules on a blackboard 500 times.
• Although these papers, and the conduct they relate, make me feel like a school marm scolding little boys, I am the judge whose duty it is to decide this motion. Accordingly, Mr. Kossack and Mr. Cannon are admonished for engaging in conduct which I know you know violates Rule 30(c)(2). You are better men and better lawyers than the conduct in which you have engaged illustrates.

Being on a plane...

... with 8 rows is not fun. Tampa for the day. Back tonight.

Tuesday News and Notes

1. Moving sucks.

2. The FBI is taking the absurd position that Wikipidea shouldn't use its emblem.

3. Law.com covers the Irey case.

4. Roberts v. Kagan, per Dahlia Lithwick.

5. More on Kagan -- she is only 6th SCOTUS law clerk to become Justice.

6. Miranda is losing its teeth.

7. Obama is having a tough time getting judges confirmed. Another article on it here.

8. Conrad Black writes on his time in a federal prison. The whole thing is worth a read:

In the Coleman Low Security compound, there are 1,800 residents and it is a little universe terminally addicted to gossip about the custodial system and especially the goings-on of the group confined there. By this time there were large numbers of journalists and photographers clustered at the gate of the Coleman complex and ongoing television coverage watched with some bemusement by my fellow residents in the television rooms of the residential units.
A steady stream of well-wishers from all factions of the compound came to say goodbye, as I put my books and papers and a few clothes items into cardboard boxes. (The only article of clothing that I took that was not among the few things I had bought myself was the nondescript brown shirt bequeathed to me when he left by the don of one of the famous New York gang families).
The Mafiosi, the Colombian drug dealers, (including a senator with whom I had a special greeting as a fellow member of a parliamentary upper house), the American drug dealers, high and low, black, white, and Hispanic; the alleged swindlers, hackers, pornographers, credit card fraudsters, bank robbers, and even an accomplished airplane thief; the rehabilitated and unregenerate, the innocent and the guilty, and in almost all cases the grossly over-sentenced, streamed in steadily for hours, to make their farewells.
Most goodbyes were brief and jovial, some were emotional, and a few were quite heart-rending. Many of the 150 students that my very able fellow tutors and I had helped to graduate from high school, came by, some of them now enrolled in university by cyber-correspondence.

New digs

Personal post: I've moved office space to right across the street from the Federal Courthouse in Miami (the address is 40 N.W. Third Street, Courthouse Center, Penthouse 1, Miami, Florida 33128). And I've added two great lawyers -- Margot Moss and Mona Markus-- to join Robin Kaplan and me. 

Margot (pictured right) was a partner at Fowler White and before that was an assistant public defender for 10 years.  Mona (left)graduated Harvard Law School a year after I did. She was a partner at Stearns Weaver, where she has worked for 11 years.

I am very excited about the move and the growth of the Firm, which will now be called Markus & Markus (instead of David Oscar Markus PLLC). I have some work to do on the website...

I will be sharing space with a bunch of other lawyers, including Marc Seitles, Richard Klugh, Hector Flores, William Barzee, and Ivlis Mantilla. 

Trustees behaving badly

It hasn't been a good run for receivers and trustees in the Southern District of Florida lately.  John Pacenti covers the latest abuse of trust here:

A longtime court-appointed trustee and receiver entrusted with $1 million earmarked for the victims of ex-lawyer Scott Rothstein’s mammoth fraud is refusing to return the money and is the subject of a federal investigation, sources told the Daily Business Review.


The money was donated by the law firm chairman in his heyday as a Broward County power broker to Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale. As part of the recovery effort for fraud victims, federal authorities and bankruptcy attorneys for the defunct Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler demanded the money back, along with millions of dollars in other charitable and political donations made by Rothstein and his law firm.

The hospital returned the money in November shortly after Rothstein’s $1.2 billion fraud collapsed. A source said the money was wired by the hospital directly to an account controlled by Marika Tolz, who was working under a contract with the U.S. Marshals Service.

The federal law enforcement agency, which is responsible for assets seized in criminal cases, hired her to safeguard the Holy Cross money until it could be disbursed and to oversee real estate seized from Rothstein after reports that one of his properties was burglarized and another was infested with mold.

The U.S. trustee’s office discovered the $1 million discrepancy in May and asked Tolz to resign from its rotating panel of trustees assigned to bankruptcy cases. The Daily Business Review reported in May that Tolz had resigned from her cases after discrepancies were discovered, but investigators and the the U.S. trustee’s office have remained tight-lipped about the case.

"Miami also has a great NBA basketball team, right?"

That was the chief of the multidistrict panel, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II of Kentucky, after Ervin Gonzalez was pushing for the oil litigation to be here in Miami.  From Curt Anderson's report:

More than 100 lawyers crowded into a sixth-floor courtroom in Boise's downtown courtroom, jockeying amongst themselves for the limited speaking slots in a hearing that lasted about 1 1/2 hours. Although some 2,000 miles from the Gulf, Boise was the scheduled stop for the roving seven-judge panel.

Most lawyers only got to talk for a few minutes, and there were a few moments of levity.

After Miami attorney Ervin Gonzalez extolled the virtues of South Florida and its chief federal judge, Federico Moreno, Heyburn cracked that Miami also has "a great NBA basketball team, right?" -- a reference to the Miami Heat's recent signings of stars LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh.

Assuming the cases are centralized as expected, the judge or judges chosen to hear them will have to decide key issues such as whether they are dismissed or allowed to continue, and whether to certify one or more class actions for people and businesses in similar situations. If the cases are not dismissed and unless there is an early settlement, a handful are usually chosen to go to trial first as "bellwhethers" that can determine the ultimate outcome of all lawsuits.

255 pages of en banc fun

The 11th Circuit issued United States v. Irey today, with 255 pages of opinions, which are a must read for any criminal practitioner in this Circuit. The question presented is whether a lengthy variance (from 30 years to 17) was reasonable in a horrific case involving multiple acts of child rape. The majority, written by Carnes and joined by Dubina, Black, Hull, Marcus, Wilson and Pryor, found the variance substantively unreasonable. Lots of interesting questions addressed, like how much deference is due to trial courts at sentencing.

Here are some highlights from Carnes' opinion:

The steady stream of criminal cases flowing through this Court brings us many examples of man’s inhumanity to man, and we see a depressingly large number of crimes against children.


The 17 ½-year sentence, if all of it were to be served, would amount to only 4 months and a week for each of the 50 distinguishable victims that Irey raped, sodomized, or sexually tortured.


In light of 18 U.S.C. § 3624, Irey will likely serve only 15 years and 3 months of his sentence, which works out to less than four months for each of those 50 victims who can be distinguished from each other in the images that show some of Irey’s crimes. And that calculation does not include any time for Irey’s additional criminal behavior of producing and distributing the massive amount of extremely graphic child pornography. Four months per child raped, sodomized, and tortured is grossly unreasonable. In sentencing there should be no quantity discount for the sexual abuse of children.


We realize that 17 ½ years, even when reduced to 15 ¼ years to serve is, as the panel stated, “a substantial portion of a human life—and no serious person should regard it as a trifle.” … Irey, after all, sentenced the children he raped, sodomized, and sexually tortured to a lifetime of harm, and the egregious child pornography he created and distributed will, because he uploaded it to the internet, continue causing harm for far longer than 17 ½ years. Irey’s pink wall series will last longer than his own lifetime or ours, inciting and encouraging the sexual abuse of multitudes of children yet unborn.


Because of the substantial deference district courts are due in sentencing, we give their decisions about what is reasonable wide berth and almost always let them pass. There is a difference, though, between recognizing that another usually has the right of way and abandoning one’s post. We will not quit the post that we have been ordered to hold in sentencing review and the responsibility that goes with it. The Supreme Court has instructed us that “[i]n sentencing, as in other areas, district judges at times make mistakes that are substantive,” and that it is our duty “to correct such mistakes when they occur.” Rita, 551 U.S. at 354, 127. In this case the district court made a substantive mistake, a clear error in judgment, by unreasonably varying downward from the advisory guidelines sentence when no sentence less than it is sufficient to fulfill the purposes set forth in the Sentencing Reform Act. To do our duty to correct that mistake, we vacate the sentence the district court imposed and remand with instructions that the defendant is to be resentenced within the guidelines range.

Judge Tjoflat concurs that the amount of variance is unreasonable but dissents, arguing that the case should be remanded for the district judge to find what is reasonable. He argues that it is not the job of the 11th Circuit to sentence Irey:

In sum, when placed on a balance sheet, the grave institutional harm caused by the court’s approach significantly outweighs any benefit the approach might yield. Resentencing defendants on appeal diminishes the role of the district court in the eyes of the legal profession, and it diminishes the public’s confidence in the district courts as an institution for administering criminal justice. It misallocates and gobbles up judicial resources. None of this is necessary. If a sentence constitutes an abuse of discretion, we should simply say so and return the case to the district court, the appropriate forum for the main event.

The first dissent is written by Judge Edmonson, and joined by Birch Barkett and Martin:

The limit that the law places on the right use of appellate court power to interfere with the sentencing decisions of United States District Judges (who, of course, have -- under the law -- powers of their own) is, for me, what this appeal is about. The specific case before us involves a serious crime and ghastly conduct -- “horrific” in the District Judge’s words -- on the part of Defendant. And, no party
has contended that the District Judge, in imposing the sentence, made a significant procedural error. The government prosecutors (who bear the 1 burden of showing reversible error) contend that the sentence imposed in district court is too lenient and that no sentence would be lawful except the maximum sentence of imprisonment that the pertinent criminal statute will allow: 30 years.

The issue is not whether federal appellate judges ought to do their duty. They must. And the issue is not whether appellate courts can review sentences and sometimes correctly set them aside, even when the sentence was imposed without procedural errors. They can. Appellate judges do have some legitimate power to review the substance of sentences: that is, to determine whether a District Judge has imposed a sentence that is either too lenient or too harsh as a matter of law. The general question presented here is what is the limit, under the law, on the power of appellate judges in deciding such reviews.

Next up is Judge Birch, who says (I think quite rightly):

The time-worn adage in jurisprudence that hard facts often lead to bad law is certainly applicable to this case. I have little doubt that had I been the sentencing judge I might well have fashioned a different and harsher sentence for this defendant. But the decision at play here is the respective roles of the appellate court and the sentencing court. Our appellate role is properly constrained by the standard of review to which we are required to adhere. As Judge Edmondson persuasively describes the application of that standard to the record, it compels an affirmance of the sentencing court’s judgment in this case. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent and join in the dissenting opinions of Judge Edmondson and Judge Barkett.

Judge Barkett also dissents, joined by Birch and Martin:

I agree with just about everything in Judge Edmondson’s dissent. If there is any point of departure, it is the addition (or clarification, in my view), that the district judge must articulate the reasons for the sentence imposed based on the evidence in the record. Because the record may support a number of reasonable sentences, this articulation is necessary so that the appellate court can be satisfied that the district judge actually considered how all of the § 3553 factors relate to the defendant’s individual case.

Obama finally starts to push federal judge confirmations...

... at least a little bit.  According the BLT:

President Barack Obama called on the Senate today to vote on long-stalled nominees for the federal judiciary -- dipping a toe into an issue that has appeared relatively low among his priorities.


In remarks at the White House, Obama said he wants to work with Republicans to fill judicial vacancies. He did not name any individual nominees, but he appeared to reference Nashville, Tenn., labor lawyer Jane Stranch when he said nominees have been waiting as long as eight months to be confirmed.


Obama nominated Stranch in August 2009 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati. Although she has bipartisan support and there’s no organized, public effort to block her, she’s been waiting since November for a confirmation vote by the full Senate.


“Most of these folks were voted out of committee unanimously, or nearly unanimously, by both Democrats and Republicans,” Obama said. “Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that they were qualified to serve. Nevertheless, some in the minority have used parliamentary procedures time and again to deny them a vote in the full Senate.”

Hopefully, Kathy can get a hearing quickly.

In other news, the NY Times is calling for change in white collar sentences and child porn sentences:

Sentencing for white-collar crimes — and for child pornography offenses — “has largely lost its moorings,” according to the Justice Department, which makes a strong case that the matter should be re-examined by the United States Sentencing Commission....


As a general principle, sentences for the same federal crimes should be consistent. As the Justice Department notes in its report, a sense of arbitrariness — sentences that depend on the luck of getting a certain judge — will “breed disrespect for the federal courts,” damaging their reputation and the deterrent effect of punishment.


Possession of a single piece of child pornography, for example, is supposed to result in a five-to-seven-year sentence — longer with aggravating circumstances — but many judges instead are imposing probation or one year for first offenses. Many federal judges have told the sentencing commission that the child pornography guidelines are far too severe.


The Justice Department is not explicitly recommending that sentences be lowered; in fact, the new financial regulatory law suggests higher sentences in some areas. But readjusting the guidelines downward in some cases is clearly one of the possible routes the sentencing commission could take. The rules for child pornography, for example, include extra penalties for using a computer, but everyone in that repugnant world uses a computer, rendering the rules obsolete.


The key in both areas is helping judges find ways to differentiate the worst offenders from those who have caused less damage or are less of a threat to society. White-collar sentences are now based on the size of the fraud, but that may not be the best way to measure the role of a defendant or the venality and damage involved.


As repellent as child pornography is, it does not help judges when someone found with a few photographs is held to similar standards as someone disseminating thousands of them. These are sensitive areas, but a thoughtful re-examination by the commission and Congress could bring new respect for the federal judiciary.

I agree that these issues need to be looked at closely; but the NY Times and the Justice Department are wrong that we should be seeking consistency in sentencing.  Each person and each case is different.  And accordingly, each sentence needs to be individual.  Basically, what Emerson said.

Rothstein feeder to pay $830 million

The Sun-Sentinel has more here:

The Fort Lauderdale hedge fund manager who was the largest feeder to Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein has agreed to give up much of his wealth as part of a settlement with bankruptcy attorneys.


The settlement agreement by George Levin and his Banyon investment entities — which funneled $830 million into Rothstein's $1.4 billion investment fraud — was filed late Monday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.


It does not spell out which assets Levin has agreed to sell and turn over to the trustee for Rothstein's now-bankrupt law firm, but Levin and his wife get to keep their $4.2 million Fort Lauderdale home and roughly $750,000 in personal possessions, according to the agreement.

In other news, Rumpole has admitted that he was wrong and "[o]f course Mr. Markus is right." 

Shocker

The front page of today's New York Times says that after John Roberts and Sam Alito were appointed, the Supreme Court shifted more to the right. I'm sure all of you are just shocked by this...

Here's the link to the lengthy piece:
http://nyti.ms/b3ypgw

I'll be in court all day Monday, so have at it in the comments.

Friday slog (UPDATED with Lew Freeman's sentence)

Some quick news items while you try to stay dry:

1.  Darth Vader attempt to rob bank. (via NY Daily News). 

2.  Lew Freeman to be sentenced today.  (via Jay Weaver)  UPDATED -- Judge Huck sentenced him to 8 years, 4 months.  (Here's the Herald article).  According to the article, the guideliens called for a much more severe sentence:

Before he surrendered, Freeman hugged his wife and two children in long, tearful embraces and shook hands with dozens of other supporters. He also took off his brown suit -- down to a long sleeve T-shirt, gym short and black loafers, knowing he would probably have to surrender to authorities immediately after his sentence.


Before he was sentenced, Freeman apologized to Judge Huck, his colleagues and his family, saying, ``I have let you down.''

Huck described Freeman, a New York native who moved to South Florida to attend the University of Miami and later its law school, as a Jekyll and Hyde character.


Huck said while his personal charitable deeds and volunteer work in the community were admirable, his theft of millions of dollars from client trust accounts and his lying to the court as a receiver were inexcusable.


Freeman was facing 12 to 15 years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.

3.  Bonnie. (zzzzzzzzz)

4.  Rumpole picks a fight with me over whether you should ever promise to a jury that your client will take the stand. He says it's too risky.  And I agree that in most cases, you can't make that promise.  But you can't have hard and fast trial rules.  Sometimes, it's worth taking that risk in opening.  Every case is different, so I have only one rule of trial practice -- there are no hard and fast rules. 

White House nominates Kathy Williams

Finally!  Such good news for Kathy and for the District.  From the White House press release:

Today, President Obama nominated Judge Charles Bernard Day and Kathleen M. Williams to United States District Court judgeships. “These candidates have distinguished records of service, and I am confident they will continue to serve the American people with integrity and an unwavering commitment to justice, ” said President Obama.

***

Kathleen M. Williams has served as the Federal Public Defender for the Southern District of Florida since 1995. She previously served in the same District as Chief Assistant Federal Public Defender from 1990 to 1995 and as an Assistant United States Attorney from 1984 to 1988. Ms. Williams has worked in private practice as an associate in the Miami offices of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius from 1988 to 1990 and of Fowler, White, Burnett from 1982 to 1984. From 2002 until 2008, Ms. Williams was the Chairperson of the Federal Defender Advisory Group and the Defender representative to the Defender Services Committee of the Judicial Conference. Ms. Williams received her J.D. in 1982 from the University of Miami School of Law and her B.A. magna cum laude in 1978 from Duke University.

Kathy, who is taking Judge Hurley's seat (he went senior), will make an excellent judge. The next step is confirmation.  Everyone should send letters to Senator Nelson urging him to act quickly. Kathy should be easily confirmed, especially after Senator Lindsey Graham's comments about the confirmation process, which were right on the money.

Congrats to Kathy!

Wednesday news and notes

1.  Judge Lenard accepted the guilty pleas today in the stolen patient record case.  (via Miami Herald).  We previously wrote about the case here, when the parameters of the deal were questioned.

2.  Jeffrey Epstein is a free man.  And the Daily Beast covers the case here, with video from his depo in which he walks out after being asked about the shape of his penis. 

3.  And, Rony Seikaly has a new single.

4.  Rumpole says never ever promise that your client will take the stand.  He's way wrong.  There are no absolute trial rules.  Now of course Blago's lawyers messed up by promising that he would testify and then not delivering.  But that doesn't mean you should never do it. 

New blog in town

And like Rumpole and SFL, it's anonymous.  It's a fun read, even though the title sucks: Kosher Meatball Blog.

Sarah Palin and Titi monkeys

Slow news day here in the SDFLA.  So, I give you these two items:

1.  Sarah Palin makes up a word (via Gawker):



2.  Man arrested for hiding 18 monkeys in his girdle. (via CNN).

"I am not there to entertain anybody."

That was Clarence Thomas at the Utah State Bar convention.  Some highlights from two articles (here and here):

• When he first arrived on the court, members “actually listened to lawyers,” Thomas said. “We have ceased doing that. Now it’s become a debate or seminar. I don’t find that particularly helpful. It may be entertaining, but I am not there to entertain anybody.”
• “There can be some questions to clarify things, to challenge it, but you don’t need 50 questions per case,” Thomas said. “That becomes more like “Family Feud” than oral argument.”
• To his Utah audience, Thomas was unexpectedly warm, funny and engaging — a different man in person, some said, than portrayed in media reports that focus on his bench demeanor.
• "Things might happen when (I'm not at the court)," he said. "You all may not remember that Eddie Murphy skit where he's on the bus and he's the only black guy on the bus and nobody talks — it's sort of like being on an elevator. As soon as Eddie Murphy leaves the bus, all the whites who are left on the bus throw off their outer garments and they're in party outfits. So things may be going on at the court (when I'm not there) — they may just be waiting and saying, 'Oh, the black guy's gone!' "
• “Deciding these cases is only easy for those who have no authority to decide them,” Thomas said. “For the rest of us, we don’t have the luxury of impugning motives, of being cynical or being political, because one vote, one mistake, can cause significant harm and change something for quite some time to the detriment of our country.”
• Thomas also said he thought it “could be a problem” to have judges selected through a political process.
• Thomas, a Roman Catholic, said his faith is a “source of strength” but that “it would violate the oath to put my faith ahead of what the law actually says, and I don’t do that.”
• One audience member asked Thomas about Chief Justice John Roberts’ reported push for more consensus decisions. “I would equate trying to get the members of the court to do what you want them to do with herding gnats in a hurricane,” Thomas said.
• "I think (the politics) about Bush v. Gore is more (a creation) of what the media said about Bush v. Gore, which I think is unfortunate," he said. "I think we have a tendency in this country to characterize institutions in ways that fit in a particular mode and fit a preconceived notion. … The interesting thing is, if you ask the members of the court, they may disagree, they may be upset, they may be passionate, but they would not say it's politics."
• "I'm convinced," he said, "that part of (this job) is that when you consider the consequences of the decisions that we make, it does weigh on you and it does show you that there's something so important that you've got to get it right. It does have an effect on you."
• "(The Supreme Court) truly is a marble palace (because) we're isolated. We're isolated from the politics, we're isolated from the city and in a lot of ways we're isolated from the country. These trips allow me to come out and see the people who really matter in our government, and that is you all."
  
  

Unnamed AUSA's mailbox burned down

Here's the Sun-Sentinel article.

The assistant U.S. attorney — whose name has not yet been released — called authorities Sunday when she saw her mailbox on fire at her home in the Caloosa equestrian neighborhood.
***
"At this point in time, we are just thinking of this as mischievous vandalism," ATF spokesman Carlos Baixauli said.

Wesley Snipes' conviction and 3-year sentence affirmed

Wesley Snipes was only convicted of three misdemeanors (and acquitted of all the felonies), yet the 11th Circuit has affirmed his 3-year sentence.  That seems harsh to me, especially because he was sentenced based on the relevant conduct for which he was acquitted.  From the reasonableness portion of the opinion:

Here, the district court carefully complied with the sentencing procedures. The judge conducted an extensive sentencing hearing and listened to Snipes’s allocution, several character witnesses, and argument about sentencing. The court correctly calculated the guideline range and, again, noted that the guidelines were advisory. The sentencing transcript reveals that the judge weighed each factor embodied in the Section 3553(a) calculus before pronouncing the sentence, which was within the recommended guideline range. The sentence was not procedurally unreasonable.


Next, we “consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. at 1190 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). “[W]e will not second guess the weight (or lack thereof) that the judge accorded to a given factor . . . [under § 3553(a)], as long as the sentence ultimately imposed is reasonable in light of all the circumstances presented.” Id. at 1191 (citation and quotation marks omitted). The party challenging a sentence has the burden of establishing that it was unreasonable. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).


The district court gave ample consideration to each of the relevant considerations found in 3553(a). Although the discussion about general deterrence was somewhat longer than the discussion of the other factors, its length corresponds with the emphasis the Sentencing Guidelines placed on deterrence in the criminal tax context. The introductory commentary to the Tax section of the Sentencing Guidelines explains that 

[b]ecause of the limited number of criminal tax prosecutions relative to the estimated incidence of such violations, deterring others from violating the tax laws is a primary consideration underlying these guidelines. Recognition that the sentence for a criminal tax case will be commensurate with the gravity of the offense should act as a deterrent to would-be violators. U.S.S.G. Ch. 2 Pt. T, intro. Comment (emphasis added).

Moreover, “[w]hen the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory

Live blogging Willy Ferrer's swearing-in

Willy Ferrer's investiture today

Chief Judge Moreno swears Willy in at 3pm today at the new courthouse.  So, those of you who came to work in casual clothes today or who are planning to sneak out early, you're gonna miss it. 

Congrats to Willy.

"The facts of this case are riddled with extraordinary cruelty and evil."

You know that you aren't going to win an appeal with that as the opening line of the opinion.  And that's how Judge Marcus started off his 87-page opinion in USA v. Chuckie Taylor.   And here's the conclusion:

In sum, we affirm Emmanuel’s convictions and sentence in full. The Torture Act’s proscriptions against both torture and conspiracy to commit torture are constitutional, and may be applied to extraterritorial conduct. The district court did not plainly err in applying § 924(c) to Emmanuel’s extraterritorial conduct, nor in its conduct of this lengthy trial. Finally, Emmanuel’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was correctly calculated by the district court, and the sentences imposed violate neither the CAT nor the Constitution.

UPDATE -- here's the AP story.

Barefoot Bandit appears before Judge Dube

It was a really quick hearing -- according to Curt Anderson: 

The American teenager who police call the "Barefoot Bandit" made his first appearance in a U.S. court since being extradited from the Bahamas.

Colton Harris-Moore appeared briefly in federal court in Miami on Wednesday. He is charged with committing a two-year string of break-ins and plane thefts across the United States. A judge set another hearing Friday to give Harris-Moore time to hire a lawyer.

The 19-year-old convict's alleged crime spree ended Sunday when Bahamian police shot out the engines of a stolen boat and arrested him. He pleaded guilty Tuesday to entering that country illegally and was deported hours later.

He had arrived in the Bahamas last week, crash landing a plane he allegedly stole in Indiana

Barefoot Bandit headed to Miami

His real name is Colton Harris-Moore and he was caught in the Bahamas. The kis was born in 1991.  From his Wiki page:

Harris-Moore became known as the "Barefoot Bandit" or as the "Barefoot Burglar", by reportedly committing his crimes while barefoot.[3] In Fall 2009, police found footprints at an airport hangar in Bonners Ferry, Idaho; a Cessna 182 stolen from there crash-landed approximately 260 miles (418 kilometers) to the west near Granite Falls, Washington after a few unsuccessful attempts to land at the small airport there. Police in the San Juan Islands also found cartoonish, chalk-outlines of feet all over the floor of a grocery store that was broken into in February 2010.[11] In Fall 2009, a Facebook fan page was set up, drawing thousands of entries,[10] and one local Seattle man started selling T-shirts bearing his picture with the words, "Momma Tried".[9] Local people from Camano Island have also attempted to vent their frustrations through a song,[19] as well as a blog which includes the sale of merchandise and accepts donations to purchase the services of a bounty hunter.[20] In April 2010, 20th Century Fox purchased the film rights to the book Taking Flight: The Hunt for a Young Outlaw, based on a proposal by Bob Friel.[21] Harris-Moore's mother has retained celebrity lawyer O. Yale Lewis to seek control of entertainment interests related to her son. She has also hired John Henry Browne to handle her son's criminal defense.

From ABC on his arrest:


The "Barefoot Bandit" faces deportation to the United States, where a slew of federal officials wait to begin the complicated process of sorting out a lenthy list of crimes that span half the country.


Monique Gomez, Harris-Moore's attorney, told ABC News that he might leave the Bahamas as early as tonight.


Colton Harris-Moore pleaded guilty today in a Bahamian court to a relatively minor charge of illegal entry into the country, The Associated Press reported.


Instead of the extradition process many expected, he'll simply be deported though the U.S. Attorney's Office. Western District of Washington spokeswoman Emily Langlie told ABC News that authorities had not received confirmation of exactly what will happen.


Once on U.S. soil, Langlie said, Harris-Moore would appear in federal court in Miami, the closest district to where he was apprehended, on a single count of interstate transportation of stolen goods. The charge was filed in December 2009, stemming from an incident in which a plane was stolen from Bonner's Ferry, Idaho, and crashed in Granite Falls.

The judge will decide bond for Harris-Moore, basing it according to his flight risk and danger to the community.


"I think the expectation in any detention hearing is the government will argue that Colton Harris-Moore is a flight risk," Langlie said. "I think he's proven that."


Harris-Moore's highly publicized exploits came to an end Sunday when he was taken into custody by Bahamian police after a high-speed boat chase off Harbor Island. The arrest capped off more than two years on the run in which he achieved a folk hero-type following from tens of thousands of Internet fans, even as he left a growing trail of increasingly brazen crimes in his wake.

Get ready for some fun in Magistrate Court this week.  He'll have to wear the prison flip flops to Court...

Tuesday News and Notes

It's pretty quiet in the District right now.  A couple news items:

1.  Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Health and Human Servies Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will be in the SDFLA (at the James L. Knight Center) on Friday July 16 at 9:45 to have the first in a series of day-long regional summits to discuss innovative ways to prevent fraud within the U.S. health care system.

2.  Lindsay Lohan made Professor Erik Luna famous.

3.  Mel Martinez didn't last long at DLA Piper.

4.  Gravity may not exist (according to one string theorist), but I'm not convinced by the "hair frizzles in the heat and humidity" analogy.

5.  Socratic method: good or bad?  I disagree with Bainbridge -- it works if it's done right.

What else people?