CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Perez

This Order addresses challenges by six defendants to the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the Sentencing Guidelines. District Judge Nowlin found that the Act violates the separation of powers doctrine and Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, particularly concerning the composition and authority of the Sentencing Commission and the lack of presidential presentment for the Guidelines. The Court further ruled that the Sentencing Guidelines infringe upon defendants' due process rights by unduly restricting judicial discretion in sentencing and limiting the consideration of individual circumstances. While concluding the unconstitutional provisions could be severed, the Court directed that, pending appellate review, sentences for offenses committed after November 1, 1987, should be determined as if committed before that date, accounting for the absence of parole.

Sentencing Reform ActSentencing GuidelinesConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersArticle IDue ProcessJudicial DiscretionFederal Criminal JusticeJudicial IndependencePresentment Clause
References
42
Case No. Nos. 00-08557, 58; No. W2002-00446-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

State of Tennessee v. Theron Davis

Theron Davis was convicted in Shelby County Criminal Court of especially aggravated robbery and criminal attempt to commit second-degree murder, stemming from his role in robbing and shooting a Memphis jewelry store owner. He received consecutive sentences of twenty-three and twelve years, respectively. Davis appealed, challenging the trial court's decision to overrule his motion to suppress the victim’s identification testimony, the denial of a special jury instruction, the instruction on the definition of 'knowingly,' and the imposition of consecutive sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgments. The appellate court found that the identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive, the jury instructions were adequate and proper, and the consecutive sentences were justified given Davis's classification as a dangerous offender and the severity of his offenses.

Especially aggravated robberyCriminal attempt to commit second degree murderIdentification testimonyMotion to suppressJury instructionsConsecutive sentencingDangerous offenderFirearm useVictim injuryCriminal intent
References
27
Case No. 03C01-9403-CR-00094
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Bush

Defendant Michael Dean Bush was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and first-degree burglary of 79-year-old Jodie Lefever, receiving a death sentence. The jury found two aggravating circumstances: torture/serious physical abuse and murder to avoid arrest/prosecution. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, rejecting claims regarding suppressed statements, sufficiency of evidence, rebuttal psychiatric evidence, jury instructions on parole eligibility and aggravating circumstances, and the constitutionality of the death penalty. The Court concluded that any instructional errors were harmless and the sentence was proportionate.

MurderCapital PunishmentFirst Degree MurderBurglaryPremeditationDeliberationAggravating CircumstancesMitigating CircumstancesMental IllnessMiranda Rights
References
98
Case No. C.C.A. No. 01C01-9610-CC-00425
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 1997

State v. Ray Vance

The defendant, Ray Vance, appealed his conviction of aggravated sexual battery in Stewart County Circuit Court. He was serving a ten-year sentence for the conviction. Vance raised three issues on appeal: whether the court erred in disallowing corroborative testimony about the victim's sexual maturity, whether the court erred in instructing the jury on release eligibility dates, and whether the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's verdict. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error regarding the evidence exclusion, jury instructions, or sufficiency of the evidence. The court noted that the defendant failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements of Rule 412 regarding sexual behavior evidence and found the jury instruction on sentencing to be harmless.

Aggravated Sexual BatteryChild Sexual AbuseHymenal TearsRule 412 EvidenceRelease EligibilitySufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsCompromise VerdictAppellate ReviewCriminal Law
References
19
Case No. 01 CR 1121
Regular Panel Decision

Albanese v. United States

Elio Albanese, who pled guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to correct his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed his attorney advised him to accept a plea agreement with a stipulated loss amount and failed to file a timely appeal regarding his Criminal History Category. The Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, denied the motion. The decision found that Albanese knowingly and voluntarily accepted the plea, and his claims of ineffective assistance regarding the loss amount were not supported by evidence or prejudice. Furthermore, his attorney affirmed that Albanese never instructed her to file an appeal.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel28 U.S.C. § 2255Plea AgreementSentencing GuidelinesCriminal History CategoryHobbs Act RobberyConspiracySecond Circuit RemandFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedureStipulated Loss Amount
References
39
Case No. 926 S.W.2d 727 (1994)
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 1994

State v. Keen

David M. Keen pled guilty to first-degree murder and aggravated rape of an 8-year-old girl. A jury sentenced him to death, finding multiple aggravating circumstances, including the victim's age, heinousness, and the murder occurring during rape. Keen appealed, raising 17 issues, primarily concerning jury instructions on mitigating circumstances and the death penalty statute. The Supreme Court of Tennessee found errors in the jury instructions regarding the weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the definition of 'heinous, atrocious, or cruel' aggravating circumstance. Consequently, the Court affirmed the conviction but remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing.

Capital PunishmentDeath PenaltySentencing ErrorJury InstructionsAggravating CircumstancesMitigating CircumstancesFelony MurderRapeChild VictimAutopsy
References
45
Case No. 13-03-028-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2005

Gayle King v. State

The case involves Gayle King's appeal after being convicted by a jury of two counts of promoting a pyramid promotional scheme and one count of theft by deception. The trial court sentenced King to concurrent sentences of two years in a State Jail facility, probated for five years, a fine, and restitution. King raised eight issues on appeal, challenging the trial court's denial of a jury charge instruction, restitution order, constitutionality of the statute, legal sufficiency of evidence for the convictions, selective prosecution, omission of a knowledge element in the jury charge, double jeopardy, and denial of a new trial motion. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the pyramid scheme and theft convictions, no error in the jury instructions, and no constitutional violations or double jeopardy issues.

Pyramid schemeTheft by deceptionCriminal appealJury convictionLegal sufficiency of evidenceDouble jeopardyJury charge instructionMistake of fact defenseConstitutional challengeStatutory overbreadth
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Bonventre

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of accepting bribes from contractors to fraudulently induce insurance carriers to lower Workers’ Compensation premiums. The court, led by Senior District Judge Weinstein, determined that general deterrence was the primary consideration in sentencing, particularly due to the widespread bribery and corruption in the New York City building industry. Despite the defendant's poor health and good private life, his crimes were motivated by greed and betrayed public trust. The court issued an upward departure from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, imposing a $250,000 fine and sentencing the defendant to time served, along with a $50 assessment. The judge found the Guideline maximum fine of $5,000 to be absurd given the defendant's wealth and the seriousness of the offense.

BriberySentencingWorkers' Compensation FraudGeneral DeterrenceUpward DepartureCriminal ConductInsurance FraudFederal Sentencing GuidelinesWhite-Collar CrimeJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Sessa

Defendants Michael Sessa, Victor Orena, and Pasquale Amato were convicted of racketeering, loansharking, and firearms offenses committed while conducting the affairs and warring over the leadership of the Colombo organized crime family. The court found that these mobsters thrived in and cultivated a complex, pervasive culture of crime, infesting and draining communities and industries in New York City through activities like loansharking and labor union corruption. The presiding judge emphasized that considerations of incapacitation and general deterrence overwhelmingly require harsh sentences, given the defendants' past histories as recidivists and the severe danger they pose to the community. Although the Sentencing Guidelines mandated life imprisonment, the court found them of little assistance in capturing the overall picture of the defendants' extensive criminal lives. Consequently, each defendant was sentenced to life in prison, with additional consecutive terms for firearm offenses, and substantial cumulative fines, with the court noting upward departures from the Guidelines due to the heinous nature of the offenses and the ongoing danger posed by the defendants.

RacketeeringLoansharkingFirearms OffensesOrganized CrimeColombo FamilySentencing MemorandumLife ImprisonmentCriminal EnterpriseGeneral DeterrenceIncapacitation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2016

United States v. E.L.

Defendant E.L. pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography. Despite United States Sentencing Guidelines recommending 51 to 63 months imprisonment, Judge Jack B. Weinstein imposed a non-incarceratory sentence of five years of probation with strict conditions. This decision was largely based on extensive medical and expert testimony, which indicated that E.L. poses an almost zero risk of re-offending, especially with his ongoing participation in psychological and sex offender treatment. The court highlighted the significant negative impact incarceration would have on E.L.'s family and his progress in treatment, while emphasizing the importance of individualized sentencing assessments. This ruling also aligned with broader concerns from the Sentencing Commission and various courts regarding the severity and applicability of child pornography guidelines for non-production offenses.

Child pornographySentencingProbation18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)United States Sentencing GuidelinesSex offender treatmentRecidivism riskForensic psychiatryObsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)Depression
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 1,624 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational