Five more opinions:
1. United States v. Martinez: The CA2 held that "the Sixth Amendment rights of confrontation as elaborated in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and of jury factfinding discussed in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), do not bar judicial consideration of hearsay testimony at sentencing proceedings."
2. United States v. Byrd: The CA2 held that the district court properly relieved the government of its obligations under a plea agreement, after concluding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was in breach. "Although United States v. Booker held that ‘[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond reasonable doubt,’ 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005), it did not speak to nor, in our view, affect the appropriate standard of proof applicable to a finding that the defendant breached his plea agreement. Such a finding was before Booker, and remains after Booker, within the province of the sentencing judge subject to a preponderance of the evidence standard.
3. Johnson v. Wright: Judge Katzmann's first paragraphs explain it all:
New York State Department of Corrections ("DOCS") policy generally forbids the prescription of hepatitis C medication to any prisoner with evidence of active substance abuse within the preceding two years. Consistent with DOCS policy, the defendants in this case refused to prescribe plaintiff – who suffers from chronic hepatitis C – with a new regimen of medication because he had, on one occasion in the relevant time period, tested positive for marijuana use. Here, however, all of plaintiff’s treating physicians, including prison physicians, believed that the medically appropriate course of treatment was to prescribe him the new regimen of hepatitis C medication, and they expressly and repeatedly recommended that DOCS approve a prescription for the medication notwithstanding the fact that DOCS policy suggested otherwise.
Because the defendants reflexively applied DOCS policy in the face of the unanimous, express, and repeated – but contrary – recommendations of plaintiff’s treating physicians, including prison physicians, we believe a jury could reasonably find that the defendants here acted with deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s medical needs.
4. Lockheed Martin v. Morganti: A petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board of the Dep't of Labor, regarding coverage under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.
5. McCullough v. Bennett: "This appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus presents the issue of whether convictions and consecutive sentences on two counts of criminal possession of a weapon violate petitioner’s double jeopardy rights when the two counts reflected shootings at two victims getting out of the same vehicle in rapid succession. . . . We conclude that the evidence permitted the jury to find the commission of two distinct offenses in accordance with applicable state law. We therefore reject the double jeopardy challenge and affirm."