Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2011/06/29/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:47:59+00:00

Document:
Family Law practitioners in the Eighteenth Judicial District should be aware that new language has been added to the Domestic Relations Case Management Orders (CMOs). The updated forms are effective immediately.
Trial exhibits: Parties are ordered to bring their exhibits to trial in an exhibit book format with appropriate copies for the court. The court will instruct the parties on when to efile their exhibits to preserve the court record.
Click here to download the new CMOs.
Click here to read more about CJD 11-01.
Brenda Storey has been working since October to create a catalys t to start a discussion on the current practices in family law. This year, there will be a Kickoff to the Family Law Institute and the special guest, who has some tough words for family law lawyers, will be actor Alec Baldwin.
The kickoff will be held Aug. 11, the day before the Family Law Institute convenes in Breckenridge Aug. 12 to 14. The event also will serve as a fundraiser for the Legal Aid Foundation of Colorado, an idea Storey said Baldwin suggested. The theme of this year’s Institute is “Say You Want a Revolution,” so the kickoff event at the Marriot City Center Hotel in Denver will start the conversations early.
Though Storey knows not everyone will appreciate Baldwin’s take on family law, the Family Law Section Chair hopes the event will entertain, educate, and challenge people to change.
When Storey first started the process of inviting Baldwin, she was unsure of whether he would be interested. When she spoke with Baldwin from the set of the TV show “30 Rock,” she was caught off-guard by the personal call and the fact that he went through his calendar with her to find a date that would work for them both.
Baldwin had never been approached by a bar association to discuss his book, which he wrote with Mark Tabb.
“I asked him to look them [the lawyers at the event] in the eyes and tell them, me, us what we’re doing wrong,” Storey said of her approach in inviting Baldwin to speak.
Despite how people may feel about Baldwin personally, Storey said the same issues—personal attacks and being brought to one’s breaking point during a divorce or custody battle—are relatable to others. Throughout her planning process for the Institute, Storey has been surprised to find how few in the family law realm know that Baldwin wrote this book, which was published in 2008.
“What I appreciate about his book is that he doesn’t just complain; he actually makes some good suggestions,” Storey said.
Although Baldwin hopes the system will change, Storey said his book is not meant to be disrespectful of those who work within the legal system.
August 11 at the Marriott City Center Hotel, 1701 California St., Denver, Colorado, beginning at 5:30 pm. Dinner and a conversation about the family law system with Baldwin. Pre-purchase of Baldwin’s book, “A Promise to Ourselves,” is available when registering. Guests who pre-purchase the book with be entered into a lottery for an intimate book signing. The twenty-five selected will get to spend an hour with the actor following the event. The twenty-five participants will be notified of their selection by August 4th. Register by August 1 by calling (303) 860-1115 or email melissan@cobar.org. A registration form, available here, must be completed to RSVP.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Maestas on Tuesday, June 28, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner attempted to steal a piece of gold from Los Alamos National Laboratory and pled guilty to theft of government property. The gold was contaminated with plutonium. The district court applied the U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(13) enhancement and sentenced Petitioner to twelve months in prison, which was within the calculated guideline range. Petitioner argues that the enhancement can only apply if the government proves that he was aware of the risk his conduct created, and that he consciously or recklessly disregarded that risk; he also challenges the district court’s factual findings that the gold was dangerous, and that he was aware of that danger.
Accordingly, the Court upheld Petitioner’s sentence enhancement. “The district court’s finding that the radioactive gold posed a danger of serious bodily injury or death was not clearly erroneous.” The gold was contaminated with a significant amount of plutonium, and the “government presented evidence that the plutonium contained in the stolen gold piece could be extremely harmful if it entered a person’s body.” The district court could reasonably infer from Petitioner’s employment history at the Laboratory that he was aware of the dangers of radiation. The district court could also reasonably infer that Petitioner was aware that the gold he removed was radioactive; the gold was taken from a boat used to melt plutonium, stored in a sealed box that was wrapped in a manner that Petitioner knew signified radioactive contamination, and there was evidence that Petitioner attempted to decontaminate the gold.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Jimenez-Guzman v. Holder, Jr. on Tuesday, June 28, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review. Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). He contends that the court erred in denying his request for a continuance and in applying an incorrect legal standard to the evidence of his controlled-substance conviction; the Attorney General asserts that the Court lacks jurisdiction over a challenge to the denial of a continuance.
The Court found that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of Petitioner’s motion for a continuance. Pending post-conviction motions or other collateral attacks do not negate the finality of a conviction for immigration purposes unless and until the conviction is overturned; the immigration judge had already continued the removal hearing several times while Petitioner awaited the state trial court’s disposition of his post-conviction motion. Additionally, the record and plea agreement negate any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to advise of the immigration consequences of Petitioner’s plea.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Rushin on Tuesday, June 28, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner was sentenced to 139 years imprisonment for robbing six convenience stores at gunpoint. Petitioner appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate or set aside his sentence, claiming entitlement to post-conviction relief because he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when his trial attorney failed to seek dismissal of the indictment based on a violation of the Speedy Trial Act (STA).
The Court found that Petitioner did not carry his burden of proof regarding ineffective assistance of counsel. To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “a defendant has the twofold burden of establishing that (1) defense counsel’s performance was deficient, i.e., counsel’s ‘representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ as measured by ‘prevailing professional norms,’ and (2) defendant was prejudiced thereby, i.e., ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'” Violation of the STA is not enough to grant a dismissal with prejudice, and a dismissal without prejudice allows the government to return a new indictment within six months. Ultimately, Petitioner’s counsel’s actions during trial were objectively reasonable; should Petitioner have been successful in a pursuit of a STA claim, it is probable that the government would simply have reindicted him.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Vasiliu v. Holder, Jr. on Tuesday, June 28, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit dismissed the petition for review. Petitioner, a native of Romania who was admitted to the United States as a permanent resident in 1982, pled guilty to criminal possession of a weapon and assault and battery/domestic abuse, and was subsequently charged with removability. While he stated that his criminal convictions supporting the removability were not final, the Court found otherwise. The constitutional objection asserted in this petition, that his guilty plea to domestic abuse was constitutionally defective, raises collateral issues that are beyond the scope of the Court’s review or jurisdiction; the proper forum is with his application for post-conviction relief in state court.
On Tuesday, June 28, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued four published opinions and three unpublished opinions.
Brown v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.
French v. American Airlines, Inc.

References: v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.