US v. Morales-Machuca, Nos. 06-1283, 07-1001 (10/17/08). The underlying facts involve a couple of botched armored car robberies. Most of it comes down to an unrenewed Rule 29 motion. The Firsts gets in a few shots in the war on poverty by explaining that it is sufficient to show that someone was involved in a robbery if they are the kind of guy that earns minimum wage (a truly dishonorable act), yet had enough money to buy cars and stuff (a pro-American act.) Besides the class-based stuff there were some vague statements from the other defendants. Most of the other points are resolved by saying that the jury “could” have drawn an inference in the government’s favor and by saying that the defendant didn’t develop his argument.
Even on the sentencing, there really isn’t much here.