Akerman lawyer Ryan Roman opens Mignonette

It's a fantastic restaurant. If oysters are your thing, there's no better place.  And it's the best lobster roll in town.  I highly recommend it. 

Plus, for better or worse, you'll likely see a bunch of judges and lawyers.  After all, owner Ryan Roman is a lawyer himself at Akerman:

Ryan Roman is an associate in the Litigation Practice Group. His commercial litigation practice includes a focus on securities litigation matters, including SEC enforcement proceedings and securities class-action defense. He has also represented portfolio companies in private equity litigation matters. In addition, Ryan is also experienced servicing clients in the hospitality industry, having defended restaurant shareholders in various business disputes. He has defended various businesses in consumer class actions, and represented companies in the enforcement of money judgments.

But he has a passion for food, running the popular food blog, MiamiRankings.

Ryan opened the joint with Blue Collar's Danny Serfer.  From the Miami.com review:

"We're both into oysters and classic raw bar ... and of course prime rib," Roman says. "So we're excited to share all that at Mignonette. Oysters are an aphrodisiac, the more you eat them, the more you love to eat them. We just want to have a place to eat cold seafood that's fun, casual and has curse words on the radio."

PS: Evoking sort of an ethical husband/wife privilege, Roman says that Blue Collar will no longer be eligible for his restaurant rankings.

 The Miami New Times review is great:

The idea for Mignonette came to the pals a year and a half ago over a bowl of ramen at Momi Ramen in Brickell. Roman was at first hesitant. What swayed him to risk pouring his life savings into the business? "I'd rather live in a restaurant than a house," he explains.
So a little more than a month ago, they decided to open Mignonette with a fairly expansive menu of simple, classic preparations. To execute their vision, they plucked Mignonette's chef de cuisine, Bobby Frank, from Blue Collar, where he was Serfer's protégé. Then they decorated the place in an "Old Florida meets New Orleans" style that includes tan leather banquettes, a marble raw bar, and hanging constellations festooned from copper pipes. There's also an intimate back room with original wall art consisting of life-size fish rendered in gold leaf by artist Reed van Brunschot.

I like the story of the two owners on the Mignonette website:

Following the adage that the pen is mightier than the sword, Ryan Roman cuts all of his steaks with a pen.  A Miami native, Roman began writing about food and restaurants in 2009, with the launch of his blog, Miami’s Restaurant Power Rankings.  Roman also contributes as a columnist for Edible South Florida.  When he is not writing about food, he is a practicing attorney with the law firm Akerman LLP.

Roman first met chef Daniel Serfer after becoming a regular at Blue Collar, but perhaps the more compelling story is when the two didn’t meet.  Unbeknownst to Roman, Serfer would read Roman’s blog while laboring away in a kitchen in New York City, during a short absence from the Miami culinary scene.  Operating under the misimpression that the namesake “power rankings” on the blog were the result of some scientific algorithm, as opposed to one person’s arbitrary opinion, Serfer dreamed of opening his own restaurant back in Miami and achieving a spot on the rankings.  When Blue Collar opened, Serfer invited Roman to a media preview, having pushed his public relations company to free up one extra seat.  The stars were aligned for the two to meet and for their friendship to begin.

Roman declined the invitation.  Unaware of the backstory that Serfer had created in his head, and generally preferring to avoid what he perceived as freebie meals, Roman saw the invitation as just another piece of PR material for the circular filing cabinet.

But unlike Sharknado, this story has a happy ending.  Roman discovered Blue Collar in due time, falling for its emphasis on comfort food, its homey vibe, and its friendly staff.
After developing a friendship during which time Roman served as best man at Serfer’s wedding and godfather to Serfer’s firstborn child (who is affectionately referred to as Steak), and during which time Roman’s fear of commitment made it impossible for him to return such favors to Serfer, the two conspired to open Mignonette.

Beth Bloom's formal investiture today (UPDATED WITH PHOTOS)

Congratulations!

Anthony Bosch pleads guilty

Here's the AP:

The former owner of a South Florida anti-aging clinic pleaded guilty Thursday to charges of illegally providing performance-enhancing drugs to athletes including high-profile Major League Baseball players, most notably New York Yankees star Alex Rodriguez.
Anthony Bosch, former owner of the Biogenesis of America clinic in Coral Gables, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute testosterone before U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles. Bosch, who called himself "Dr. T," faces a maximum 10-year prison sentence but is likely to get far less because of cooperation with prosecutors and with MLB's investigation into player drug use.
Defense attorney Guy Lewis said Bosch, 51, provided key information to MLB investigators that led to suspensions of 14 players, including the record season-long suspension handed to Rodriguez for this past year. Bosch also met numerous times with federal prosecutors and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents, Lewis said.
"He was faithful in terms of appearing each and every time he was requested to," Lewis said. "Each and every time he appeared, answered questions and was available."
...In a plea agreement, Bosch admitted to providing testosterone to baseball players, from professionals to high school athletes. Six other people are charged in the case, and Bosch has agreed to testify against them if they go to trial.

He was also reinstated on bond:

Earlier this month, Gayles revoked Bosch's $100,000 bail because he twice tested positive after his August arrest for cocaine use and had missed appointments at drug treatment programs. On Thursday, Gayles agreed to release Bosch on bail with several new conditions, including a requirement that Bosch attended a 24-hour inpatient drug treatment program.Prosecutors did not object, and Lewis said Bosch needs the treatment badly.
"You have before you an individual who does need counseling. We recognize that. He's begging for it," Lewis said.
When Bosch is not in the treatment program, he will remain on house arrest with electronic monitoring, Gayles said. Sentencing for Bosch is set for Dec. 18.

Deputy U.S. Marshal from Miami arrested on drug ripoff charge in California

From News10 ABC in Yuba City, California:

One of three men arrested following a suspected marijuana theft is a deputy US Marshal.
Clorenzo Mack Griffin, 37, works out of the US Marshal's Service office in Miami and has been a deputy marshal since April 2010, said Drew Wade, a spokesman for the US Marshal's Service in Washington.
According to the California Highway Patrol, Griffin and two other men were in a Jeep that ran a red light around the corner from the CHP's Yuba City office on Saturday afternoon.
Following a short chase, the three occupants abandoned the vehicle near the Sutter County Jail and fled on foot.
A Sutter County sheriff's deputy saw one of the men, identified as Griffin, run into a secure area of the jail property and draw a handgun from his waistband.
The CHP says the deputy fired at Griffin, who wasn't hit, and was taken into custody along with the other two suspects without further incident.
Investigators found a large amount of marijuana in the Jeep and said their subsequent investigation determined the pot had been stolen at gunpoint from an individual in Yuba City.

 

Federal Bar invites pro bono participation

The Federal Bar Association had a nice luncheon at the Hyatt today asking lawyers to become more involved in pro bono cases at both the state and federal level.  Judge Salter from the 3rd DCA and Judge Jordan from the 11th Circuit spoke.  Good peeps.  Here's a picture from the event:

Scalia says no to sentencing on acquitted conduct

Unfortunately, he only got Justices Thomas and Ginsburg to agree with him, so the Court denied cert in Jones v. U.S.  From Scalia's dissent on the cert denial:

This has gone on long enough. The present petition
presents the nonhypothetical case the Court claimed to
have been waiting for. And it is a particularly appealing
case, because not only did no jury convict these defendants
of the offense the sentencing judge thought them guilty of,
but a jury acquitted them of that offense. Petitioners were
convicted of distributing drugs, but acquitted of conspiring
to distribute drugs. The sentencing judge found that
petitioners had engaged in the conspiracy of which the
jury acquitted them. The Guidelines, petitioners claim,
recommend sentences of between 27 and 71 months for
their distribution convictions. But in light of the conspiracy
finding, the court calculated much higher Guidelines
ranges, and sentenced Jones, Thurston, and Ball to 180,
194, and 225 months’ imprisonment.
On petitioners’ appeal, the D. C. Circuit held that even if
their sentences would have been substantively unreasonable
but for judge-found facts, their Sixth Amendment
rights were not violated. 744 F. 3d 1362, 1369 (2014). We
should grant certiorari to put an end to the unbroken
string of cases disregarding the Sixth Amendment—or to
eliminate the Sixth Amendment difficulty by acknowledging
that all sentences below the statutory maximum are
substantively reasonable.

It's terrible to me that in a free society an individual can be sentenced to conduct for which he was found not guilty.  How is this acceptable?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Well, the federal courthouse is closed today.  It's one of those weird days, though, when schools are still open.  I wonder what most law firms are doing today?  Please post in the comments whether your firm is open or closed.

If you are working, and are looking for some interesting reading, check out this article in the Washington Post about Supreme Court reasoning:

Twice this past week readers wondered why I had forgotten a key element of one of the most basic aspects of journalism: the old who-what-where-when-and-how.
It was clear what the Supreme Court had done, they said, but where’s the why? There’s a pretty good defense for that, though it is frustrating for all: The justices never gave their reasons.
In an in­cred­ibly consequential first week of the term, the court allowed same-sex marriages to proliferate around the nation, temporarily put on hold and then gave the green light to rulings ending the bans in Idaho and Nevada, and refereed state laws governing voting in next month’s midterm elections.
All without explanation.

 Judge Kopf believes Judge Arnold would have been excellent on the Supreme Court.  President Clinton was close to nominating him instead of Breyer.  As I've said before Justice Breyer is one of the most conservative Justices on the Supreme Court as it relates to criminal justice issues, so things would have been quite different had Arnold made it instead.

With all this Supreme Court talk, you should check in with ScotusBlog tomorrow for new Court orders and cert grants.

Tick Tock

The statute is about to run on the Scott Rothstein case.  And a big indictment came out today against Former regional vice president of TD Bank Frank Spinosa, who is represented by Sam Rabin. Judge Bloom got the case. The new judges have all the fun...

From the Sun-Sentinel article:

Spinosa, 53, was released on $250,000 bond after a brief appearance in federal court. He was placed on house arrest with electronic monitoring and is scheduled for arraignment on Oct. 24, court records show.

His lawyer, Samuel Rabin, said Spinosa will plead not guilty and plans to go to trial on the allegations.

"He's innocent and he wants his day in court," Rabin said.

Spinosa has known for years that he was under criminal investigation and had offered to surrender if the government filed charges against him, Rabin said. He called the arrest at Spinosa's home "totally unnecessary" and "one of those typical Rothstein case flourishes."

The grand jury indictment, unsealed Friday morning, charges Spinosa with one count of wire fraud conspiracy and five counts of wire fraud. Each charge carries a maximum punishment of 20 years in federal prison and hefty fines.

Spinosa is accused of facilitating Rothstein's fraud by giving investors a "false sense of security" and inducing them to invest hundreds of millions of dollars with Rothstein by lying about how much money was in Rothstein's bank accounts and who could withdraw it.

Spinosa signed off on fraudulent so-called "lock letters" that led Rothstein's investors to believe that money in some of Rothstein's bank accounts was being held only for them, according to the charges.

Prosecutors also say Spinosa lied and used a script containing "talking points" prepared by Rothstein when he met with some investors and participated in conference calls with others to help reassure them their investments were safe.

Rothstein's fraud involved fooling investors into thinking they were making huge profits by investing in confidential legal settlements. He told investors they were making a lot of money by fronting smaller lump sums to plaintiffs who had won settlements or judgments and wanted quick access to cash. The investors would supposedly reap huge profits by later collecting the full amount of the settlements.

Rothstein later admitted it was all a lie and he used the money to pay for what he liked to call his "rock star lifestyle." Cash from new investors was used to pay out "profits" to older investors and keep the fraud alive.

"While defendant Spinosa and Rothstein did not discuss the fraudulent nature of the confidential settlements, they did agree to the preparation of the false and fraudulent 'lock letters' and the making of false statements to investors," according to the indictment.

Change (UPDATED)

The local rules committee has proposed new rules here. Chief Judge Moore ordered:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will conduct an en banc public hearing on the proposed rule amendments on November 14, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. at the Paul G. Rogers Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401. Those who desire to appear and offer oral comments on the proposed rule amendments at this hearing shall file written notice to that effect with the Clerk of the Court no later than five days prior to the hearing. Those who desire to offer only written comments on the proposed rule amendments should do so in accordance with the mechanism provided on the Court’s website in connection the publication of the proposed rule amendments.

En banc in West Palm on a Friday afternoon... I'm sure the Miami judges are thrilled! (UPDATE -- A commenter informs me that Judge Rosenberg's investiture is that day in West Palm Beach, so the judges will be there anyway.) But hey we are a courteous bunch. From the intro to the proposed rules:

Members of the bar and the Court are proud of the long tradition of courteous practice in the Southern District of Florida. Indeed, it is a fundamental tenet of this Court that attorneys in this District be governed at all times by a spirit of cooperation, professionalism, and civility. For example, and without limiting the foregoing, it remains the Court's expectation that counsel will seek to accommodate their fellow practitioners, including in matters of scheduling, whenever reasonably possible and that counsel will work to eliminate disputes by reasonable agreement to the fullest extent permitted by the bounds of zealous representation and ethical practice.

I wonder if someone is going to propose that the Rule say: "that counsel AND THE COURT..."

Meantime, there is a new holiday schedule.  

Peace and Love!

Lawyers heart adverbs

The WSJ has a whole article about the love affair:

No part of speech has had to put up with so much adversity as the adverb. The grammatical equivalent of cheap cologne or trans fat, the adverb is supposed to be used sparingly, if at all, to modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs. As Stephen King succinctly put it: “The adverb is not your friend.”
Not everybody, however, looks askance at the part of speech. Indeed, there is at least one place where the adverb not only flourishes but wields power—the American legal system.
Adverbs in recent years have taken on an increasingly important—and often contentious—role in courthouses. Their influence has spread with the help of lawmakers churning out new laws packed with them.
A U.S. appellate court, for example, this past summer wrestled with the question of whether a defendant could have “knowingly” aimed a laser pointer at a helicopter if he mistakenly assumed the beam wouldn’t reach the aircraft.
Words such as “knowingly,” “intentionally” and “recklessly,” which deal with criminal intent, pop up most frequently, but plenty of other adverbs have enjoyed the spotlight. When the U.S. Supreme Court in June recognized religious protections of closely held companies, justices pondered the significance of an adverb in a 1993 federal statute that guards against laws that “substantially burden” the exercise of religion.
“Indiscriminately” was pivotal in a federal appeals court ruling in January striking down the “net neutrality” rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. Preventing broadband providers from charging sites like Netflix more money for faster speeds would effectively treat them like common carriers, which are required by law to “serve the public indiscriminately,” the court said.
In a tax case from the summer, lawyers for the Internal Revenue Service defended their decision to freeze the bank accounts of a former Pennsylvania state senator, only to see their arguments founder on the word “quickly.” Tax law allows the government to immediately freeze the assets of a suspected tax cheat who “appears to be designing quickly” to hide his wealth. But the judge said there was nothing quick about the defendant’s cash and real-estate transactions, which spanned several years.
“Contrary to the ordinary view that adverbs are superfluous, law generally, and criminal law especially, emerges through its adverbs,” James M. Donovan, a legal anthropology professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law, recently wrote in a paper on the subject.
Mr. Donovan, who runs the school’s law library, said that he was immediately drawn to the subject after encountering Mr. King’s “On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft” in a faculty reading group. “His blanket dismissal of the importance of adverbs got me uncomfortable,” said Mr. Donovan, “but it took a while to articulate why.”
The number of adverb-dense disputes over how to properly construe a criminal statute has surged since the 1980s, according to a case-law search conducted by Brooklyn Law School professor Lawrence Solan, author of “The Language of Judges.” On the federal level, he said, the criminalization of white-collar and regulatory offenses in the past 30 years has been especially good for adverbs. So has a trend in courts toward painstakingly precise textual analysis, the professor said.
In point of fact, an adverb once got a hearing before the nation’s most eminent jurists.
A U.S. Supreme Court case in 2009, Flores-Figueroa v. U.S., ultimately turned on the modifying reach of the word “knowingly,” tucked into a federal statute defining the crime of aggravated identity theft.
The petitioner was a Mexican citizen arrested for giving his employer counterfeit Social Security and alien registration cards that displayed his name but other people’s identification numbers. He convincingly argued that the presence of “knowingly” in the law required the government to prove that he knew the IDs were fake.
The justices unanimously agreed with him. “As a matter of ordinary English grammar, ’knowingly’ is naturally read as applying to all the subsequently listed elements of the crime,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote.
Bryan Garner, editor of Black’s Law Dictionary, is regarded by scholars as the dean of legal prose. He says legislators and adverbs need one another.
Statutes “have to be hyper-literal and generic,” he said. “A fiction writer might say he barreled down the street. There is no way a statute can say, ‘If you barrel your car.’ ”
Says Mr. Garner: “No legislative drafter ever says: Did I pull my readers in? That’s something Stephen King has to ask.”

Congratulations to Judge Federico Moreno

He was just appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to serve as a member of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference. This is a big honor for our former chief.

Anthony Bosch tests positive for cocaine...

...and Judge Darrin Gayles revoked his bond. From Curt Anderson:

The former owner of the clinic at the center of Major League Baseball's recent performance-enhancing drug scandal had his bail revoked Monday because of recent positive tests for cocaine use.

U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles ordered Anthony Bosch jailed immediately. Bosch tested positive twice in August for cocaine use, after he was released on $100,000 bail under conditions including no use of illegal drugs and random urine testing. Gayles also found Bosch wasn't regularly attending voluntary drug treatment.

"I simply have no confidence in his ability to appear as required," Gayles said at a hearing.

Prosecutors say Bosch's Coral Gables clinic, Biogenesis of America, was involved in a conspiracy to provide performance-enhancing drugs to MLB players and even high school athletes. Fourteen MLB players were suspended following the probe, including a season-long suspension this year for New York Yankees star Alex Rodriguez.

Bosch, 51, is scheduled to plead guilty next week and has been cooperating in the investigation against others who were charged, including possibly testifying in those cases. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael "Pat" Sullivan, however, said authorities were well aware of Bosch's chronic drug problem and fondness for South Beach nightclubs.

"We knew from our investigation that Mr. Bosch was one who liked to party," Sullivan said.

Bosch attorney Guy Lewis, himself a former Miami U.S. attorney, pointed out that Bosch had not tested positive for cocaine since Aug. 18 and was doing his best to attend a drug treatment program. Lewis denied that Bosch has been frequenting nightclubs and said that he is living up to his cooperation agreement with prosecutors.

"I can tell you he's not out on South Beach," Lewis said. "The last thing he's doing is out being notorious in South Florida. He has a drug problem, though. He is addressing it."

Although Sullivan did not ask for Bosch's bail to be revoked, Gayles refused to simply place Bosch under a curfew or order more frequent urine testing. Gayles also was unmoved by Lewis' comment that Bosch was under a great deal of pressure and was the subject of death threats.

"The pressure on the defendant, I don't find a mitigating factor," the judge said. "I don't find that he's a good candidate to remain out on bond."

Look who is all new and fancy on First Monday in October

Yup, the Supreme Court of the United States is back in business and it has rolled out a new website.

The October 2014 Term starts out with an interesting argument this morning in Heien v. North Carolina, in which the Justices will consider whether a police officer’s mistake of law provides the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to stop a car. Here's the preview from ScotusBlog:

The Supreme Court will open the October 2014 Term on Monday morning by hearing arguments that may bring back bad memories of convoluted law school discussions: may an officer’s reasonable “mistake of law” provide reasonable suspicion to stop a car under the Fourth Amendment? The Court has previously ruled that a reasonable mistake of fact will not violate the Fourth Amendment. Although Jeff Fisher, an experienced Supreme Court litigator, has presented some formidable arguments to rule for Heien, he may face an uphill battle persuading a majority of Justices that a reasonable, but mistaken, interpretation of state law should receive different constitutional treatment.

Judge Darrin Gayles' investiture

It was a packed house:

Some other pictures:

Another monster sentence

This time it's 27 years for mortgage fraud. 27 YEARS! And that's less than the prosecutor was asking for...

From the Tampa Bay Times:

Florida developer Domenic Rabuffo was sentenced Tuesday to more than 27 years in federal prison for a North Carolina mortgage fraud scheme that bilked four major banks out of more than $50 million in loans made to dozens of Floridians who posed as straw buyers.

The Miami man, now 78, is likely to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Since he was jailed without bail after his indictment in January, Rabuffo has been hospitalized several times and had carotid surgery to restore the flow of blood to his brain. His lawyers say he also has diabetes and a degenerative spinal disc problem that has in a wheelchair.

U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore noted that the mortgage fraud scheme contributed to the country’s economic decline and indicated his sentence was partially designed to deter others.

Rabuffo is appealing the jury verdict that found him and several others guilty of conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud and multiple counts of bank fraud.

Rabuffo’s lawyer at sentencing Tuesday in Miami said a 60 month sentence would be appropriate.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Dwayne Williams asked for the 327 month sentence, slightly more than 27 years and at the top of the sentencing guidelines for a defendant with his record.

UPDATE -- Meantime, Scott Rothstein's ex-partner Stuart Rosenfeldt was sentenced this morning by Judge Cooke to a 33-month prison term on conspiracy conviction.

Irfan Khan Strikes Back

You remember Irfan Khan, the supposedly big terrorism case that was dismissed a few summers ago. Well, Khan is seeking revenge. From the AP:

Irfan Khan, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan with a wife and two children, worked hard to realize the American dream after arriving in this country in 1994. He held jobs in South Florida as a taxi driver, service technician and operated a limousine company. He was an avid cricket player. Then he stepped up to a California computer industry job in 2011 that promised a good living.

A short time later, Khan was indicted along with his father and brother - both Muslim imams at South Florida mosques - with conspiring to provide up to $50,000 to the Pakistani Taliban terror group. Khan spent 319 days in solitary confinement before federal prosecutors abruptly dropped all charges in June 2012.

"It was very, very hard," Khan said of his days spent praying and reading in that lonely cell.

Later, a federal judge ordered the acquittal of Khan's brother for lack of evidence, although their elderly father, Hafiz Khan, was convicted at trial and sentenced to 25 years behind bars. He's serving that time at a federal prison in North Carolina.

Now, Irfan Khan is suing the U.S. government for malicious prosecution, accusing authorities of essentially manufacturing a non-existent case against him. He is seeking potentially tens of millions of dollars in damages. A Miami federal judge refused the Justice Department's attempt to get the case dismissed, and it's headed for a June 2015 trial date.

I simply look at this as another opportunity to post one of my favorite clips:

Poll on Judge Fuller

The Daily Report is running a poll on what should happen to Judge Fuller.  Here's the poll, and here's the latest from Alyson Palmer of the DR on what's going on:

The Associated Press reported that it obtained a recording of the 911 call made by the woman, identifying herself as Kelli Fuller. According to the AP, the woman said she needed paramedics, saying, "He's beating on me. Please help me."
Fuller agreed to spend up to 24 weeks in a domestic violence intervention program and undergo an alcohol and substance abuse assessment to resolve the resulting misdemeanor battery case against him. His criminal defense lawyer has said that Fuller made no admission of guilt and that if Fuller completes the program, the case against him will be dismissed and his arrest record expunged.
Fuller said in a statement issued then that he regretted the incident, calling it embarrassing. He said he agreed to pre-trial diversion "after consulting with my family, and deciding that it was in everyone's best interests to put this incident behind us. While I regret that my decision means that the full and complete facts regarding this incident will likely not come out, I have no doubt that it is what is best for all involved."
Meanwhile, the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has initiated an investigation into the matter. Although only Congress can remove a judge from office through the rarely-used power of impeachment, the federal courts by statute have some power to discipline their own judges.
Each federal appeals court's Judicial Council, made up of appellate and district court judges, can impose a range of punishments that include censure and asking a judge to retire voluntarily. If a Judicial Council concludes that a judge may have engaged in conduct that might constitute grounds for impeachment, the council must refer the matter to the national Judicial Conference, which in turn can send the matter to the U.S. House of Representatives for possible impeachment proceedings.

“Miami is replete with people who utilize illegal funds and live a luxurious, unbelievable lifestyle.”

That was Judge Lenard, sentencing Alvaro Lopez Tardon --convicted of spending in Miami, drug proceeds earned in Spain -- to 150 years in federal prison.  From the Miami Herald:

A federal judge put a uniquely Miami spin on the $20 million shopping spree of convicted money launderer Álvaro López Tardón before sending the accused Spanish drug kingpin to prison for 150 years on Monday.
“I call it funny money, and we have a plethora of funny money here,” U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard declared, as she described López Tardón's use of cocaine proceeds from Spain to purchase exotic cars and waterfront condos. “Miami is replete with people who utilize illegal funds and live a luxurious, unbelievable lifestyle.”
Before Monday's final sentencing, Lenard had conducted a series of hearings in which she spoke about shadowy characters like López Tardón who hang out in sunny places like South Florida. During those hearings, a federal prosecutor and defense attorneys debated the relative harm that the 39-year-old Spaniard actually did to the community by blowing drug money made in Spain on high-priced cars, condos, jewelry and watches in Miami.
In June, López Tardón was found guilty of a single conspiracy charge that carried up to 20 years in prison and guilty of 13 money-laundering charges that carried up to 10 years each. Under sentencing guidelines, the judge had the authority to craft a prison term that effectively added up to life in prison for the Spaniard.

Meantime, Judge Altonaga sentenced a pimp to 29 years in prison:

A Miami federal judge did not believe Damion St. Patrick Baston told the truth when he took the witness stand in his sex-trafficking trial this summer. She also did not detect any sense of guilt or remorse after the jury convicted him.
At his sentencing hearing on Monday, U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga said Baston has a “deviant” and “delusional” personality with a “warped sense of reality.”
Despite her low opinion of the 37-year-old Jamaican, the judge refused to give him a maximum life sentence, instead sending Baston to prison for 27 years. The judge said that, although the trial evidence proved Baston repeatedly victimized young women in the sex trade from Australia to Dubai to Miami, he didn’t kill anyone and, therefore, a “sentence of life would not provide just punishment.”

What do you all think about these very long sentences after trial?  What would they have gotten had they pleaded guilty?

Meantime, down the street, there is a big push to get a new civil courthouse.  It's obviously needed.  Judge Soto looks great in the ad, while the courthouse looks just awful:

RIP Mike Beck

Judge Ed Davis' longtime courtroom deputy and then Northern Division Manager Michael Beck unexpectedly passed away over the weekend.  Mike was a great guy and really funny once you got to know him. 


He knew more about the clerk's office and how things ran than anyone I knew. 


Most people will remember his booming voice -- he would introduce court for Judge Davis every morning with the traditional OYEZ, OYEZ, OYEZ call.  It was really impressive how he did it.  So the judges started using him for en banc hearings and the like. 


Judge Davis' tight-knit federal family has had a rough go of it the last couple of years.  Mike was a big part of that family.  He will be missed.


If you have a good Mike Beck story, please remember him in the comments.

“This is really a story about redemption.”

A great quote on Rosh Hashanah from Bill Barzee about his client, lobbyist Richard Canadia.  Judge Cooke sentenced him to probation and four months of home confinement. From the (newly designed) Herald:

Cooke said she recognized his remorse and the significance of his help. She also recognized he was a vulnerable man who had gone through financial difficulty, a divorce and the death of his parents when he decided to participate in an FBI-orchestrated grant scheme to rip off the federal government.
Cooke, known for her folksy expressions, said the “wheels fell off the bus” in describing Candia’s dire situation. Before that, “I don’t think this was anything you were capable of or thought you would do,” the judge told him.

Pizzi surely hasn't kept his head down since his acquittal.  Here are his comments after the sentencing:

After Thursday’s sentencing, Pizzi called Candia’s deal an “outrage.”

“After three years and millions of tax dollars spent, lying lobbyist Michael Kesti is doing talk shows and lying lobbyist Richard Candia is home watching footballs games,” Pizzi said. “These are two lobbyists who lied to and wanted to corrupt every city in the state in order to make money. One got a big paycheck by conning the government and the other, Candia, a free pass. This is how this operation ended.”

"Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided. As long as I can do the job full steam…. I think I’ll recognize when the time comes that I can’t any longer. But now I can."

That's Notorious RGB, otherwise known as Justice Ginsburg, in this Elle article. It's an awesome article and worth the read.  Here's one exchange:

It’s part of Washington lore that you and Justice Scalia are good friends and opera buddies. I have to ask, when he says that the Constitution doesn’t necessarily prohibit discrimination against women, isn’t it hard not to take it personally?

Justice Scalia and I served together on the DC Circuit. So his votes are not surprising to me. What I like about him is that he’s very funny and very smart.

[She points to a photograph.] That one shows the two of us in 1994 when we were on a delegation to India. So there we are on a very elegant elephant. My feminist friends say, “Why are you riding on the back of the elephant?” and I said, “Because of the distribution of weight, we needed to have Scalia in the front.”

Does it make a difference having three women justices?

Yes, an enormous difference….When Sandra left, I was all alone…. Now Kagan is on my left, and Sotomayor is on my right. So we look like we’re really part of the court and we’re here to stay. Also, both of them are very active in oral arguments. They’re not shrinking violets. It’s very good for the schoolchildren who parade in and out of the court to see.

In other news, a Miami state judge supposedly told a store clerk "to go and f--- yourself."

Michael Boggs' nomination to district bench in Georgia appears dead

The AP has the story here:

President Barack Obama's controversial selection of Michael Boggs to become a federal judge in Georgia lacks enough votes to survive and the nomination should be withdrawn, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Monday in what amounts to a rare rebuff of the president from his own party.

The fate of Boggs's nomination has been in doubt for months, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other Democrats expressed opposition to him because of positions he has taken on abortion, same-sex marriage and the Confederate flag.

Monday's remarks by the Judiciary chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., signaled what could become an embarrassment for Obama. It is unusual for a president's nominees to be rejected by members of his own party.

Several hours earlier, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama did not want Boggs to withdraw his nomination. Earnest gave a modest endorsement of Boggs, saying Obama believes that "Judge Boggs has the necessary qualifications to serve in this role."

After Leahy's statement, White House spokesman Eric Schultz stood by Earnest's remarks.

Leahy's comments came six weeks before congressional elections in which strong support from women and black voters would enhance Democrats' chances of retaining Senate control and limiting expected losses in the House.

Obama last year nominated Boggs, a state appeals court judge, to become a federal district judge in Georgia. Boggs was recommended by that state's two Republican senators as part of a deal to fill seven judicial vacancies there.

***

Boggs served as a Georgia state legislator a decade ago. During that time, he backed measures to post information online about doctors who perform abortions - which opponents said could jeopardize those physicians - and to keep the Confederate battle emblem on the Georgia flag. He also supported a proposed amendment to the state constitution barring same-sex marriages.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in May, Boggs told the senators that he now believes his vote on abortion doctors was wrong and he's glad the Confederate emblem was later removed from the state flag. He said his views on same-sex marriage "may or may not have changed."

Nonetheless, he was criticized by several Democrats, with some expressing skepticism that he could make impartial decisions.

Abortion-rights groups hailed word that Boggs' nomination was in trouble.

"Everybody wishes this guy would do the right thing and withdraw," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "He's got no pathway forward, and he's taking up time and energy that everybody wishes could be spent on other things."

60 minutes visits the SDFLA and interviews Wifredo Ferrer

You can watch the clip here:

Barry Bonds' conviction in trouble?

That's what all of the court observers are saying after yesterday's en banc argument (watch here*).  Here's one example, by Pamela MacLean:

The government may have struck out with the majority of an 11-judge panel of the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday in former Giants slugger Barry Bonds’ challenge to his obstruction of justice conviction in an investigation of steroids use.
“I find your reading of the statute absolutely alarming,” Judge William Fletcher to the government’s lawyer Mary Jean Chan.  And it got worse from there.
A three judge panel of the appeals court upheld Bonds conviction for obstruction of justice in September 2013 for his evasive testimony to a grand jury investigating illegal distribution of steroids by the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO.)
The three-judge appeals panel held that his answers were “evasive, misleading and capable of influencing the grand jury to minimize” the role of Bonds’ trainer, Greg Anderson, suspected of distributing performance enhancing drugs.
Bonds’ attorney Dennis Riordan opened by saying any decision will garner public attention because of Bonds’ celebrity and controversial status.  But that’s not what’s important, what is important, he said, “This is the first time the government has asked to convict  a defendant for comments to a grand jury that were non-responsive, to convict for obstruction of justice because he wandered off topic.”
While Riordan faced tough questioning, most of the fire was reserved for the government.
Fletcher asked what happens in civil litigation if lawyers respond to interrogatories and they give truthful but evasive answers.  “Are they guilty of a crime?” he asked.
“Yes,” responded Chan.
“Well that is a common practice in civil litigation and you may have criminalized half the bar.  “Half the bar may be in serious trouble,” he said.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski accused the government of engaging in some evasive conduct in the superseding indictment by not making clear the Bonds statements that were allegedly evasive.
Bonds’ rambling answers to the grand jury  about being a “celebrity child” in response to a question whether he received any steroids from  Anderson could be the basis of a conviction, the panel held.  The panel found that even truthful answers could be the basis of conviction if they were so evasive.
Bonds was sentenced in 2011 to spend 30 days in his Beverly Hills mansion and perform 250 hours of community service for his conviction to use of dodgy answers to federal questions.  Jurors could not agree on a perjury charge against Bonds.
Judge Susan Graber said, “Speaking for myself, I don’t see how there is sufficient evidence [of obstruction] when the question was asked and answered repeatedly.”
Kozinski asked, “Can you cure a misleading answer?”
“Not if the intent was to mislead at the time,” Chan said.
“But wasn’t it cured in this case?” asked JudgeJacqueline Nguyen?

*How cool (and informative) is it that you can watch the argument right after it happens.  When will the 11th do this?


Meantime, last night the Broward Federal Bar Association had its big gala.  Lots of federal judges turned out, including federal judge hopefuls. 

Should Judge Fuller resign?

In addition to Judge Kopf's posts on the subject, there is growing noise that Fuller needs to step down -- this time from members of the Congress.  From the Montgomery Advertiser:

Alabama's two U.S. senators on Wednesday called for U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller to step down from the bench, joining a growing chorus of federal lawmakers seeking the judge's resignation after his arrest on domestic violence charges last month.
Fuller, 55, was arrested early on the morning of Aug. 10 and charged with misdemeanor battery. According to a police report, Fuller's wife, who had lacerations to her mouth and forehead, said the judge threw her to the ground, pulled her hair and kicked her after she confronted him over alleged affair with a law clerk.
The judge, who was appointed to the U.S. Middle District for Alabama in 2002, agreed to enter a pre-trial diversion program earlier this month. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has reassigned his caseload and has launched an investigation of Fuller's actions.
"The American people's trust in our judicial system depends on the character and integrity of those who have the distinction and honor of sitting on the bench and I believe Judge Mark Fuller has lost the confidence of his colleagues and the people of the state of Alabama and I urge him to resign immediately," Sen. Richard Shelby, a Republican, said in a phone interview.
U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Birmingham, called for Fuller's resignation last week, saying he had "violated the public trust." Earlier on Wednesday, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said on her Twitter account that Fuller should resign. U.S. Rep. Martha Roby, R-Montgomery, issued a statement Tuesday saying that "domestic abuse cannot be tolerated, explained away or swept under the rug," and raised the possibility of Fuller's impeachment.
Shelby said he called Fuller to alert him that he was going to publicly call for his resignation. A message left with Barry Ragsdale, an attorney for Fuller, was not immediately returned Wednesday afternoon.

Judge Rosenbaum's first published opinion in the 11th Circuit starts this way

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge: 
It was a scene right out of a Hollywood movie.  On August 21, 2010, after more than a month of planning, teams from the Orange County Sheriff’s Office descended on multiple target locations.  They blocked the entrances and exits to the parking lots so no one could leave and no one could enter.  With some team members dressed in ballistic vests and masks, and with guns drawn, the deputies rushed into their target destinations, handcuffed the stunned occupants—and demanded to see their barbers’ licenses.  The Orange County Sheriff’s Office was providing muscle for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation’s administrative inspection of barbershops to discover licensing violations.   We first held nineteen years ago that conducting a run-of-the-mill administrative inspection as though it is a criminal raid, when no indication exists that safety will be threatened by the inspection, violates clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.  See Swint v. City of Wadley, 51 F.3d 988 (11th Cir. 1995). We reaffirmed that principle in 2007 when we held that other deputies of the very same Orange County Sheriff’s Office who participated in a similar warrantless criminal raid under the guise of executing an administrative inspection were not entitled to qualified immunity.  See Bruce v. Beary, 498 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2007).  Today, we repeat that same message once again.  We hope that the third time will be the charm. 

STRONG!  Click here for the whole opinion.

Judge William Pryor (note that the court is now distinguishing the two Pryors) concurred and dissented from the opinion, with this intro:

I agree with the majority opinion that the search of the barbershop exceeded the scope of a reasonable administrative inspection and that the barbers presented evidence that Corporal Keith Vidler, as the supervisor, violated their clearly established constitutional rights. I also agree that Brian Berry presented evidence that Deputy Travis Leslie, who handcuffed Berry and patted him down, violated his clearly established constitutional rights. But Edwyn Durant, Reginald Trammon, and Jermario Anderson presented no evidence that Deputy Travis Leslie violated their constitutional rights. Even though the inspection of the barbershop appeared to be “a scene right out of a Hollywood movie” (Majority Op. at 1), we cannot bend the law to resolve this appeal with a feel-good ending from a boxoffice hit. The law entitles Leslie to qualified immunity against any barber who failed to present evidence that Leslie personally deprived him of a clearly established constitutional right. Durant, Trammon, and Anderson failed to prove an affirmative causal connection between their specific injuries and Leslie’s conduct. For that reason, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.  

HT How Appealing.

Have the appellate courts really changed?

The NY Times had this front page story yesterday about President Obama's appointments and how he is "reshaping" the appellate courts.  From the intro:

Democrats have reversed the partisan imbalance on the federal appeals courts that long favored conservatives, a little-noticed shift with far-reaching consequences for the law and President Obama’s legacy.

For the first time in more than a decade, judges appointed by Democratic presidents considerably outnumber judges appointed by Republican presidents. The Democrats’ advantage has only grown since late last year when they stripped Republicans of their ability to filibuster the president’s nominees.

Democratic appointees who hear cases full time now hold a majority of seats on nine of the 13 United States Courts of Appeals. When Mr. Obama took office, only one of those courts had more full-time judges nominated by a Democrat.

The shift, one of the most significant but unheralded accomplishments of the Obama era, is likely to have ramifications for how the courts decide the legality of some of the president’s most controversial actions on health care, immigration and clean air. Since today’s Congress has been a graveyard for legislative accomplishment, these judicial confirmations are likely to be among its most enduring acts.

What do the readers think -- will the "change" in the 11th Circuit make a difference?  The 11th Circuit has been known to be one of the most, if not the most, conservative appellate courts in the country for the past decade or two.  It's too early to tell just yet, but I wonder whether we are going to see huge changes in the 11th Circuit, especially on criminal justice issues.  Let's see what happens with these recent en banc cases that the court agreed to hear.

In other news, there is an interesting fugitive case, in which the last time he was seen was in Florida (from the AP):

One of the last times anyone ever saw Tommy Thompson, he was walking on the pool deck of a Florida mansion wearing nothing but eye glasses, leather shoes, socks and underwear, his brown hair growing wild.*
It was a far cry from the conquering hero who, almost two decades before, docked a ship in Norfolk, Virginia, loaded with what's been described as the greatest lost treasure in American history - thousands of pounds of gold that sat in the ocean for 131 years after the ship carrying it sank during a hurricane.
On that day in 1989, Thompson couldn't contain a grin as hundreds cheered his achievement. But his victory was short-lived.
For the past two years, the U.S. Marshals Service has hunted Thompson as a fugitive - wanted for skipping a court date to explain to investors what happened to the riches. The rise and fall of the intrepid explorer is the stuff of storybooks, a tale receiving renewed attention amid a new expedition begun this year to the sunken ship.
"I think he had calculated it, whatever you want to call it, an escape plan," Marshals agent Brad Fleming said. "I think he's had that for a long time."

*That;s how I looked yesterday when I lost to Rumpole in our fantasy football match-up.

Should Judge Fuller resign?

Another district judge and blogger -- Judge Kopf -- strongly says yes:

I would not waste the effort trying to impeach him. I know something about impeachment having actually tried such a case before the Nebraska Supreme Court where I sought to oust Nebraska’s Attorney General. I doubt that you would ever get the House to act and any such action would probably not succeed as a legal matter even if you did. By the time it got to trial in the Senate, under his plea deal, the conviction would no longer exist. It will have been erased.
Instead, the Chief Judge of the Circuit and the Circuit Judicial Council should strip him of his ability to hear cases for as long as the law allows. See 28 U.S. Code § 354(a)(2)(A)(i) (“ordering that, on a temporary basis for a time certain, no further cases be assigned to the judge whose conduct is the subject of a complaint”). They should also publicly reprimand him and formally request that he resign. Id.§ 354(a)(2)(A)(ii-iii) & § 354(a)(2)(B)(ii). Pay him forever as an inducement to resign–the statute gives them that leverage. I don’t care. That’s chump change. Just neuter him for as long as possible. Approach this process practically and quickly. But be tough.
I don’t care about punishing Judge Fuller. I don’t want to hurt his family. I just want him off the bench for as long as possible. Why? It is very simple. Given what happened in that hotel room, no one should trust his judgment in a federal trial courtroom. That courtroom is a hallowed place where trust in the one person wearing a black robe is absolutely indispensable.*
*By the way, this has nothing to do with the Ray Rice case.

I see that Kopf says that this has nothing to do with the Ray Rice case, but this is bad timing for Fuller of course.

I also wonder whether Judge Kopf thinks any federal judge who enters into a diversion program should resign?  What about marijuana possession?  What about DUI? (Sadly, these things happen with some regularity in Florida state courts...)


What say you?

Ana Alliegro sentenced to time served

She was represented by Richard Klugh.

Marc Caputo has the story here of the sentencing:

The federal investigation into former Congressman David Rivera took another major step Wednesday when his close friend and political ally was sentenced for her role in allegedly helping him break campaign finance laws.

"I took responsibility," Ana Alliegro said in court before she was sentenced to six months of house arrest and two years of probation after serving six months in jail.

"I owe the voters of Florida ... a huge apology," she said.

U.S. District Judge Robert Scola indicated he would have sentenced Alliegro to more time in prison — at least 18 months total and as much as five years — if she had gone "rogue" and not coordinated with Rivera.

Scola suggested Rivera wasn't acting like a man.

"Some might call it sexism [but] the man should come forward and not let the woman do time," Scola said.

Jose Padilla to be re-sentenced this morning (UPDATED WITH SENTENCE)

Judge Cooke still has the case, this time on remand after the 11th Circuit said 17 years wasn't enough. Padilla couldn't have asked for a better lawyer to represent him this morning -- he's got the FPD Michael Caruso. Paula McMahon has the details:

Padilla, 43, was convicted of conspiracy and providing support for a terrorism group. He's already spent more than 12 years in solitary confinement, enduring some of the harshest incarceration conditions ever imposed on a U.S. citizen.

If prosecutors get what they want, Padilla — a broken man, his lawyer says — could be in for even more punishment.

Padilla is scheduled to be re-sentenced Tuesday after an appeals court ruled that the 17 years and four months imprisonment initially imposed by U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke was not enough. That punishment would have seen him released in May 2022, at age 51.

Prosecutors have agreed to recommend a prison term of no more than 30 years for Padilla, who converted to Islam in a Broward jail in the 1990s, was recruited at a Sunrise mosque and later signed up for al-Qaida training. The prosecution suggests the minimum he could legally get is 20 years and 10 months.

Padilla's lawyer, Federal Public Defender Michael Caruso, did not say exactly how much punishment he should face, instead highlighting the extraordinarily severe treatment Padilla has received at the hands of government operatives. That mistreatment, he said, merits a lesser penalty.

In a break from legal tradition, Caruso repeatedly refers to Padilla by first name in the court filings, an attempt to humanize him.

The defense portrays Padilla as a middle school dropout and fast food restaurant worker who was easily manipulated by sophisticated terrorist operatives.

Most importantly, Caruso wrote, Padilla has been completely broken and subdued by aggressive and "inhumane" tactics, including constant isolation.

"Jose has always been peaceful and compliant with his captors. He was, and remains to the time of this [court] filing, docile and resigned," Caruso wrote.

"Many of the conditions Jose experienced were inhumane and caused him great physical and psychological pain and anguish … All of the deprivations and assaults … were employed in concert in a calculated manner to cause him maximum anguish and to 'break' him," Caruso wrote. "As is evident to anyone who has had any contact with Jose in the ensuing years … [it has] succeeded."

Can you imagine these conditions:

At the brig, the defense said Padilla was held in solitary confinement with no access to a lawyer, his family or the outside world. The intent: "to maximize his disorientation, discomfort, hopelessness, and despair."

According to court records, interrogators assaulted and screamed at him, shackled him for hours in "excruciating stress positions," and threatened to kill him. They also used extreme temperature changes, glaring lights and darkness to disorient him, confined him to a windowless cell and injected him against his will with substances they said were truth serums, the defense wrote.

In America? Yup, and it hasn't stopped:

The harsh treatment of Padilla continued after his sentencing, the defense wrote.

Padilla has been in solitary confinement at the Federal Detention Center in downtown Miami awaiting re-sentencing for the past two years.

But he was kept in the notorious "Supermax" federal prison in Florence, Colo. — which one former warden called "a clean version of hell" — from 2008 to late 2012. He will likely be sent back there after Tuesday's re-sentencing.

Padilla spends 24 hours a day in solitude in a cell the size of a small bathroom, with just five hours a month of exercise in an outdoor cage that Supermax inmates call "the dog run." He's allowed no physical contact visits and just one monthly "social" phone call.

Nevertheless, the prosecutors are asking for 30 years this morning.

UPDATE -- Judge Cooke sentenced Jose Padilla to 21 years, which is what Caruso asked for and 9 years less than the government's request.

Jill Pryor confirmed to 11th circuit 97-0

Congrats to Judge Pryor.

We now have two judges named Carnes and two judges named Pryor.

I had always hoped for two Barketts...

"I reached this difficult decision after consulting with my family, and deciding that it was in everyone's best interests to put this incident behind us."

That was District Judge Mark Fuller after taking pretrial diversion on his domestic battery case.  The question now is what will happen to the 11th Circuit's order reassigning all of his cases. 

More from the Atlanta Journal & Constitution on the plea:

“I reached this difficult decision after consulting with my family, and deciding that it was in everyone’s best interests to put this incident behind us,” Fuller said in a statement released by one of his attorneys. “While I regret that my decision means that the full and complete facts regarding this incident will likely not come out, I have no doubt that it is what is best for all involved.”
Fulton County Chief Magistrate Stephanie Davis set an Oct. 14 court date for Fuller to provide proof he had received alcohol and drug treatment and enrolled in a 24-week program for those accused of domestic violence. It is then that the charge from an Aug. 9 incident at The Ritz-Carlton will be dropped. He also cannot have any “violent contact” with his wife, Davis said during the Friday court hearing.
“This incident has been very embarrassing to me, my family, friends and the court,” said Fuller, 55, who has presided in the federal court in the Northern District of Alabama since President George W. Bush appointed him in 2002. “I deeply regret this incident and look forward to working to resolve these difficulties with my family, where they should be resolved.”
Last month, Fuller’s wife called 911 to report he was beating her, police said. Moments later, an Atlanta police officer knocked on the Fullers’ hotel room door.
According to a police report, the judge’s wife had lacerations to her mouth and forehead and she said her husband had thrown her to the ground, pulled her hair and kicked her after she confronted him over an alleged affair her husband was having with a law clerk. Fuller’s wife told police that he dragged her around the room “and hit her several times in the mouth with his hands.”
Fuller told police his wife threw a glass at him and that he was defending himself. “When asked about the lacerations to her mouth, Mr. Fuller stated that he just threw her to the ground and that was it,” the report stated.
Fuller had no visible injuries, according to the report.
According to a transcript of the 911 phone call, Fuller’s wife pleaded for help.
“He’s beating on me,” she told a dispatcher before requesting an ambulance. “Please help me.”

BREAKING -- JNC CUTS LIST TO 3 FOR OPEN DISTRICT SEAT (UPDATED)

And those three are:

Mary Barzee-Flores
Peter Lopez
Barry Seltzer

Congrats to the finalists.  Now it's up to Nelson/Rubio and Obama for the nomination.

Update -- Apparently, the Herald sat through the interviews and posted this editorial about the appointment process:

The three South Florida finalists advancing for consideration for a coveted opening on the federal bench in the Southern District are to be congratulated. They’ve earned it.

On Thursday, they, along with other aspirants to the prestigious, lifetime appointment, sat on the hot seat in a large conference room on the 14th floor of the Wilkie D. Ferguson Jr. U.S. Courthouse in downtown Miami.

A member of the Miami Herald Editorial Board was present as the 20-plus members of the Florida Judicial Nominating Commission quizzed and grilled the 15 candidates for 25 minutes each, the final phase of a long process that began in July for the privilege of having their names recommended to Florida’s two U.S. senators.

In this race, voters did not pick the winner; the blue-ribbon panel made up of local legal eagles and community leaders had the honor — and somehow that seemed right and how, perhaps, it should be done for all judicial races.

The different selection processes for state and federal judges — the first are generally elected, the latter selected — highlighted the anemic slate of judicial candidates and bitter races with plenty of mudslinging that played out in Miami-Dade and Broward last month. Judicial decorum was missing among a number of candidates.

Many of the eight contested circuit and county races in Miami-Dade were marked by the emergence of political committees supporting judicial candidates. Rival committees sent out biting attack mailers, unsavory in a judicial race, and scary — these are nonpartisan races in which candidates can only promise to follow the law. The most bitter contest pitted former Miami-Dade School Board member Renier Diaz de la Portilla against Veronica Diaz, an assistant attorney with the city of Miami. She eventually won.

Race and ethnicity also came into play, as has happened in the past. For example, the supporters of incumbent Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Rodney “Rod” Smith, who is black, accused unsuccessful challenger Christian Carrazana of running with the hope his last name appealed to voters in the heavily Hispanic county, a charge that Mr. Carrazana denied.

None of that took place Thursday in the conference room where committee members drilled down to gauge the smarts, temperament and dedication of each candidate.

11th Circuit grants en banc in cell-site case

Well, that was fast.  The government asked for en banc review in Quartavious Davis' case on August 4 (covered by the blog here). 

I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again here -- has the 11th Circuit ever granted en banc review when the defense has asked for it?

News & Notes

1.  JNC interviews are today for the open federal seat.  Will be interesting to see who makes the cut.

2.  The 11th Circuit granted en banc review in United States v. Roy.  This was the case authored by Judge Wilson in which the court granted a new trial for a defendant because the district judge conducted part of the trial without him and his counsel.  Chief Judge Ed Carnes dissented.  Now the whole court is going to hear the case.  Interestingly, the Carneses are using their first names now to distinguish themselves.  Here's the beginning line of the order: Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, PRYOR, MARTIN, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.  Soon the Pyrors will be doing the same thing...


3. Judge Tjoflat, joined by Judge Ed Carnes and Judge Marra, has this new opinion in United States v. Campbell, which starts this way:

In this case, Maurice William Campbell, Jr., and several co-conspirators, created, and successfully executed, a scheme to defraud the State of Alabama to the tune of several million dollars. The scheme was ultimately uncovered, and the co-conspirators were separately indicted by a Northern District of Alabama grand jury. Campbell was charged with wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, engaging in monetary transactions in criminally derived property, and conspiring to commit those offenses.
Campbell pled not guilty and stood trial. Several of his co-conspirators, having pled guilty, testified for the prosecution. The jury believed what they had to say and found Campbell guilty as charged. At sentencing, the District Court departed downward from the sentence range the Sentencing Guidelines prescribed, 262 to 327 months’ confinement, and imposed prison sentences totaling 188 months. The court also ordered him to pay $5.9 million to the State of Alabama in the form of restitution.
Campbell appeals his convictions and sentences. He appeals his convictions on the ground that the Government failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.2 He appeals his sentences on the ground that they are procedurally and substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597, 169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007). We find no merit in Campbell’s challenges to his convictions, and therefore affirm them, because the evidence of guilt, which we set out in considerable detail infra, was overwhelming. We also affirm his sentences, finding no procedural or substantive error.

4.  Check out  the Dade County Defense Bar Association's Fall 2014 Ethics Seminar, which is being put on by Robert Kuntz.  Looks interesting!

Anthony Bosch set to plead guilty before Judge Gayles

From the Miami Herald:

Anthony Bosch, the South Florida clinic operator suspected of selling banned steroids to suspended Major League Baseball players, plans to plead guilty in October to illegally distributing the performance enhancement drugs.
“We’ve resolved the case,” Bosch’s defense attorney, Guy Lewis, told U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles on Wednesday in Miami federal court. “It’s going to be resolved with a [guilty] plea.”
Bosch, who initially pleaded not guilty after he surrendered last month, has signed a plea agreement admitting to his criminal activity at a Coral Gables anti-aging clinic that allegedly sold testosterone to New York Yankees star Alex Rodriguez and other players. He was scheduled for trial on Monday, but the agreement precludes it.
...In recently filed court papers, the U.S. attorney’s office revealed that 122 electronic surveillance recordings — audio and video — were made of Bosch and the other defendants during the federal investigation. It gained momentum early last year after the Miami New Times broke the story about Bosch’s alleged sale of steroids to Major League ballplayers and others.
None of Bosch’s customers have been charged in the federal case.
The federal investigation is shrouded in secrecy. Prosecutors Pat Sullivan and Sharad Motiani and defense attorneys Lewis and Susy Elena Ribero-Ayala have agreed that no evidence -- including the names of customers -- can be shared with outside parties, including Major League Baseball. The clinic’s customers also included Miami-Dade high school ballplayers.
Gayles, the federal judge, has granted a protective order restricting the sharing of the evidence.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/09/03/4324946/suspected-of-selling-steroids.html#storylink=cpy

8th Circuit affirm sentence of probation where guidelines were 135-168 months

District judges, I think, are still fearful of giving large variances in white-collar cases (especially after trial), but this 8th Circuit case should give some more comfort:

A jury found Abby Rae Cole guilty of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy to commit tax fraud.  The district court sentenced Cole to three years probation, a downward variance from the advisory Guidelines range of 135 to 168 months imprisonment.  The government appealed the sentence as substantively unreasonable, and Cole cross-appealed her convictions.  We affirmed the convictions but declined to reach the issue of whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable, finding procedural error in the lack of an adequate explanation by the district court for the sentence and the substantial downward variance.  We remanded the case to afford the district court a chance to supply an adequate explanation....
In our previous opinion, we noted that before reaching the substantive reasonableness of a sentence “‘[w]e must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error,’” such as “failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Id. (quoting United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)). We noted that Cole and her co-conspirators’ convictions were based on the theft of approximately $33 million from Best Buy over a four-year period and the evasion of over $3 million in taxes, Cole’s sentencing Guidelines range was 135 to 168 months imprisonment, and Cole’s co-conspirators, her husband and a Best Buy employee, received sentences of 180 and 90 months respectively. Despite these facts, the district court provided scant explanation for the profound downward variance to a sentence of probation.
On remand, the district court received additional briefing from the parties, conducted a hearing in which it heard additional argument with respect to sentencing, and then announced its reasons for the downward variance and the probationary sentence in a lengthy and comprehensive analysis concluding with the observation that this is an “unusual, extraordinary case in which a sentence of three years probation was appropriate.”  In the additional analysis, the district court touched on all of the section 3553(a) factors in explaining the rationale behind the sentence it imposed upon Cole. The district court recognized the numerous restrictions Cole endured while on probation and the “lifelong restrictions” she faces as a federal felon, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)&(B); the court stressed that, with the probationary sentence, Cole would be less likely to commit further crimes as she “has a far greater likelihood of successful rehabilitation with family support and stable employment,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). The court also explained that while “[t]his was one of the largest corporate frauds in Minnesota history and was also a significant tax fraud,” Cole served a more minor role as, in the court’s judgment, she was “mostly a passive, although legally responsible, participant.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).  The court focused on Cole’s history and characteristics, emphasizing that she had no prior contact with law enforcement and was “markedly different” than “most of the fraudsters who appear before th[e] Court” in that Cole “is not a consummate fraudster, she is not a pathological liar.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Finally, the district court explained that the probationary sentence would allow Cole to work and earn money to make restitution to the victims of the fraud.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7).
The United States persists in its appeal, contending that the district court improperly based the sentence on Cole’s socioeconomic status, her restitution obligations, and her loss of criminally derived income.  However, the facts of Cole’s fall from an industrious and highly successful entrepreneur to convicted felon and the loss of the bulk of her legitimately acquired assets cannot be denied.  We find no error in the district court’s reference to these events....
While we do not minimize the seriousness of the crimes perpetrated by Cole and the staggering nature of the fraudulent scheme in which Cole was a participant, the district court here, unlike in Dautovic, has adequately explained the sentence and appropriately considered the section 3553(a) factors in varying downward to a probationary sentence, making “precisely the kind of defendant-specific determinations that are within the special competence of sentencing courts.”  Feemster, 572 F.3d at 464 (quotation omitted).  For instance, the district court noted that Cole’s role in the offense was mostly as a passive participant and Cole was not the typical white collar defendant the court had observed in similar criminal schemes.  We find no error in the weighing of the section 3553(a) factors, and thus the district court did not abuse its substantial discretion in sentencing Cole to probation.

 In local news, Fane Lozman made the front page of the Palm Beach Post this weekend.  You remember Lozman -- he's the guy who went to the Supreme Court on the floating boat/house issue and won!  Here's the intro to the new piece:

Ducking under mangroves to reach the Intracoastal Waterway, Fane Lozman spreads his arms wide as he contemplates living on a narrow strip of land on Singer Island that most believed would never be developed.
“How can you beat his view?” he asks with a grin, gesturing toward the open blue water.
His grin is more than a little bit impish.
More than a year after he clobbered Riviera Beach by persuading the U.S. Supreme Court that the city illegally seized and destroyed his so-called houseboat, the 53-year-old self-made millionaire is back rattling city cages, trying to put that landmark decision into action.
He plunked down $24,000 this year for 29 acres of submerged land and about a third-acre of upland on the western shore of Singer Island. The pristine, mostly underwater property, will one day be home to a 60-foot-long floating home - a famous one that served as Frank Sinatra’s base of operations in the forgettable 1960 detective movie, “Lady in Cement,” he says.
But there’s more. Lozman wants neighbors. “My plan is to develop this into an upscale floating home community,” he says.
To the further chagrin of city officials, the man who has been a thorn in their sides since he moved to Riviera Beach roughly eight years ago is no longer a one-man wrecking crew.
Daniel Taylor, a 53-year-old Riviera Beach native, has recently reignited his family’s decades-long battle with the city for the right to use his submerged land as well. He, too, says it would be the perfect spot for a floating home.
With a nod to Lozman’s successful seven-year legal battle with the city, Taylor recently attached a name to his patch of land along the Intracoastal Waterway. He calls it “Lozman’s Cove.”
“I thought it was a heroic deed and I like the underdog,” he said, explaining why he honored Lozman by posting the street sign inside a fenced in area he turned into a picnic area for occasional parties.
Like Lozman, he said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision paves the way for him to use the 2 acres of submerged land he owns that extends from his private picnic area.

Justice Kennedy was at UM Law to welcome new students

Miami in August?  He needs to schedule this trip for beginning of the Spring semester...

Anyway, Justice Kennedy had this to say (via UM News):

He had expected answers such as The Verdict, To Kill a Mockingbird, or A Few Good Men—Hollywood films related to the legal profession that had strong messages and profound meaning.

But when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy saw the movie that many of the students applying to China’s first school of law based on the American law school model had cited as the Hollywood picture that most inspired them to want to become an attorney, he was shocked: Legally Blonde, a 2001 comedy that stars Reese Witherspoon as a sorority girl who struggles to win back her ex-boyfriend by earning a law degree.

Kennedy would later learn more about the film and understood why the students related to it. “For them it [law school] was a new and daring adventure,” he said Monday to about 250 first-year University of Miami School of Law students. “This was a risk, a different world…and I want you to feel that way about law school.”

What about Vinny?!

This is an incredible story

What happened here?

The jury agreed with the defense and had reasonable doubt about whether the dad did it..

The jury believed that the dad did it and the jury excused his behavior.

The jury didn't know and didn't care.

 

pollcode.com free polls

The USA Today covers this trial in which a man was accused of killing the man who killed his two sons in a DUI.  The jury acquitted him:

A jury has acquitted a southeast Texas man of murder in the fatal shooting of a drunken driver who had just caused an accident that killed the man's two sons.
David Barajas cried when the verdict was read Wednesday. He faced up to life in prison, if convicted.
Prosecutors had alleged that Barajas killed 20-year-old Jose Banda in a fit of rage after Banda plowed into Barajas and his sons while they were pushing a vehicle on a road near their hometown of Alvin. Twelve-year-old David Jr. and 11-year-old Caleb were killed.
Defense attorney Sam Cammack says Barajas didn't kill Banda and was only focused on saving his sons. The gun used to kill Banda wasn't found and there was little physical evidence tying Barajas to the killing.
After the trial was adjourned, the acquitted father spoke with reporters.
"I thank God. This has been hard on me and my family," he said, surrounded by his wife, lawyers and loved ones.
Barajas explained that he is bitter about be prosecuted, but is praying for that the Banda family get their justice.
Barajas said he is not sure who killed Banda.
***
Legal experts said prosecutors would likely have to overcome jury sympathy for Barajas, who had the support of many residents of Alvin, which is about 30 miles southeast of Houston. Further complicating their case was that there were no witnesses who identified Barajas as the shooter and gunshot residue tests done on Barajas came back negative.
Investigators testified that a bullet fragment found in Banda's car could have come from a .357-caliber gun, and that ammunition for such a gun was found in Barajas' home, along with a holster. Cammack said his client never owned a gun and that tests showed the bullet fragment also could have come from another weapon.
A forensic scientist testified that blood found on the driver's side door and driver's arm rest of Banda's car was consistent with that of Barajas.
The defense called only three witnesses to testify during the trial, which began last week.
But prosecution witnesses told jurors during questioning by Cammack that more gunfire had taken place well after Banda was shot - pointing to the possibility that the actual shooter was still at large - and that a search of Barajas' home failed to find any evidence that directly or indirectly linked him to the crime scene.
Cammack also suggested that Banda could have been shot by his own cousin or half-brother, who told investigators that they witnessed the crash but fled the scene. Both testified that they did not shoot Banda.
Cammack also used 911 calls to create a timeline that suggested Barajas would not have had enough time to shoot Banda.