Source: http://yalejreg.com/nc/d-c-circuit-review-reviewed-appointed-by-the-court-part-ii/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:09:57+00:00

Document:
There were just two opinions this week, and neither is especially relevant to administrative law.* Even so, I noticed something interesting. In United States v. Alvaran-Velez, the opinion notes that Carmen D. Hernandez was appointed to argue on behalf of the appellant. And Reid v. Hurwitz was argued by Caleb P. Redmond, a law student. That reminded me that it has been a while since I have recognized the lawyers who have served as appointed counsel. So I had my talented research assistant identify appointed counsel since December 2016.
United States v. Pyles: John A. Briley Jr.
West v. Lynch: David M. Zionts, Robert A. Long, Jr.
Many thanks to all of these lawyers — and future lawyers — for their service.
* Reid v. Hurwitz is about the Federal Bureau of Prisons; I suppose that makes it an “admin law” case … sorta. Here, Judge Wilkins, joined by Judge Griffith, addressed a prisoner complaint; the prisoner alleged, among other things, that the Bureau violated various regulations by failing to deliver magazines when he was housed — “sometimes for disciplinary reasons, and other times for administrative ones” — in a Special Housing Unit. The district court concluded that the complaint was moot because he wasn’t so housed anymore. The majority, however, concluded his claims were not moot because of the exception to mootness for claims capable of repetition yet evading review. “Having been placed in a SHU in myriad different BOP institutions, subject each time to a restriction allegedly imposed under a purported BOP policy or practice contravening BOP regulations, Reid has proffered a logical theory that the challenged actions reasonably will recur despite his current transfer out of the SHU.” Judge Katsas dissented because he was not persuaded that there was an actual BOP policy that would apply. In United States v. Alvaran-Velez, Judge Pillard (joined by Judges Henderson and Edwards) rejected a sentence reduction because the Sentencing Commission policy at issue never applied to his case, thus negating the relevance of the Ex Post Facto Clause. This case is worth a read if you practice criminal law.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.