Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2012/02/08/
Timestamp: 2019-07-19 10:24:11
Document Index: 499630518

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1326', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2']

February 8, 2012 Archives - CBA CLE Legal Connection
Colorado Court of Appeals: Interlocutory Appeal — Claims Barred by Statute of Repose; Dispute Regarding “Substantial Completion” to Be Resolved as Question of Law
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Shaw Construction, LLC v. United Builder Services, Inc. on February 2, 2012.
Interlocutory Appeal—Construction Defect Action Reform Act—Tolling—Substantial Completion—Summary Judgment—Statute of Repose
Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: appellate law, civil procedure, Colorado Court of Appeals, construction law, HOA law, real estate law
Colorado Court of Appeals: Claim Preclusion Does Not Bar Later Action on Claims that Arise After Filing of Action but Before Judgment
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Loveland Essential Group, LLC v. Grommon Farms, Inc. on February 2, 2012.
Summary Judgment—Claim Preclusion
Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: civil procedure, Colorado Court of Appeals, contract law, real estate law
Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: business law, Colorado Court of Appeals, construction law, contract law
Colorado Court of Appeals: Use in Violation of Zoning Ordinance Could Not Be Grandfathered Under New Zoning
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Walter G. Burkey Trust v. City and County of Denver on February 2, 2012.
Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: administrative law, city and county of denver, Colorado Court of Appeals, real estate law
Colorado Court of Appeals: Error to Award Attorney Fees for Post-Filing Attorney Conduct
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in SRS, Inc. v. Southward on February 2, 2012.
Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: attorney fees, civil procedure, Colorado Court of Appeals, Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, employment law
Tenth Circuit: District Court Misapplied Sentencing Guidelines; Temporal Restraint Should Be Given Regarding Imposition of Earlier Sentence
February 8, 2012 By Zachary Willis Leave a Comment
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Rosales-Garcia on Tuesday, February 7, 2012.
The Tenth Circuit remanded to the district court for resentencing. Petitioner was convicted of a state drug trafficking felony in 2008 and sentenced to ninety days’ state imprisonment and three years of probation. Petitioner was deported, then illegally reentered the country, and was arrested shortly after. His probation for the earlier state drug offense was revoked and he was sentenced in state court to a term of imprisonment of 1 to 15 years on his prior state drug felony. After serving his state drug sentence, Petitioner was released into federal custody and prosecuted in federal court for his illegal reentry. Petitioner “agreed to plead guilty to the federal charge as part of the District of Utah’s fast-track program.” The Presentence Report recommended that Petitioner’s base offense level be enhanced by 16 levels, which Petitioner objected to. The government alleged that his “sentence upon revocation of his state probation constituted a prior drug trafficking felony for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months. [Petitioner] contended that application of the 16-level enhancement did not comport with the Sentencing Guidelines for the sole reason that the ‘sentence imposed’ did not exceed 13 months at the time he committed the base offense of illegal reentry.” Petitioner appeals the sentence.
The Court determined that because “it is undisputed that the defendant’s prior conviction must have occurred before deportation, . . . the most logical reading of § 2L1.2 [of the Sentencing Guidelines] is to refer to the date of deportation in evaluating whether the ‘sentence imposed’ for the prior felony exceeded 13 months. . . . In other words, [the Court concluded] that the temporal requirement contained in the text of § 2L1.2 with regard to the defendant’s conviction also applies to the imposition of his sentence for that conviction.” Additionally, Petitioner’s “act of illegally reentering the country reveals nothing about the seriousness of his drug trafficking conviction at the time he violated 8 U.S.C. § 1326. It would be inconsistent with the purpose of § 2L1.2 — whose text draws a distinction between pre- and post-illegal reentry actions — to consider revocation of his probation resulting from the base offense of illegal reentry in measuring the seriousness of his earlier drug trafficking felony.” As such, the Court concluded that “the best understanding of § 2L1.2 incorporates a temporal restraint with regard to the imposition of the defendant’s earlier sentence,” and therefore the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines. Because Petitioner has conceded that he is subject to the 12-level enhancement in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B), the district court should recalculate Petitioner’s guidelines range with the smaller 12-level enhancement from § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B), replacing the 16-level enhancement from § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).
Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 2/7/12
On Tuesday, February 7, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and eleven unpublished opinions.
United States v. Hoodenpyle
BC Technical, Inc. v. Ensil Int’l Corp.
United States v. Walny
Clementson v. Countrywide Financial Corp.
United States v. Vargas-Medina
Valenzuela v. Medina