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. Court File No. 73
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2007

United States v. McElheney

This Memorandum and Order details the Court's reasoning for imposing a 135-month sentence on Dr. Norman Earl McElheney for receiving child pornography. Chief Judge Curtis L. Collier outlined the federal sentencing methodology, adhering to advisory Sentencing Guidelines and considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The defendant, an orthopedic surgeon, was found with numerous child pornography images and videos on his work and home computers and had attempted to obstruct justice. The Court rejected arguments for a downward departure or variance, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense, the need for deterrence, and the protection of the public due to McElheney's assessed moderate to high risk of reoffending, despite his expressed remorse and acceptance of responsibility.

Sentencing Guidelines (USSG)Child Pornography OffenseFederal Criminal SentencingDownward Departure MotionSentencing Variance Arguments18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) FactorsBooker Decision (Advisory Guidelines)Eighth Amendment ChallengeDue Process Violation ClaimRecidivism Risk Assessment
References
62
Case No. 63647
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 1983

Sharpe v. State

Michael Lee Sharpe appealed a theft conviction, alleging judicial error in a jury comment, denial of impeachment via civil pleadings, a variance in ownership proof, and improper jury argument. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction, ruling that the objection to the jury comment was waived, civil pleadings are generally inadmissible hearsay for impeachment, and the statutory definition of "owner" was met. The court also found no error in the jury instruction on ownership or the prosecutor's closing argument. A dissenting opinion argued that impeachment evidence was improperly excluded and that a fatal variance existed in the proof of ownership.

theftcriminal appealjury commentimpeachmentcivil pleadingsownershipprior inconsistent statementwaiver of errorjury instructionTexas
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fraioli's Hydro-Power, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection

The petitioner, a truck washing business, sought CPLR article 78 relief after its request for a variance to use New York City's water supply during a Stage II Drought Emergency was denied. The petitioner argued that it was denied a hearing and that the denial was arbitrary and capricious, citing economic hardship and previous variances. The court, presided by Judge David B. Saxe, rejected both arguments, finding that a formal hearing was not constitutionally required for a variance denial by an administrative agency. Furthermore, the court found the denial of the variance rational, stating that truck washing is not an essential use, alternatives exist, and granting a variance would contradict water conservation efforts and afford preferential treatment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Drought EmergencyWater ConservationVariance DenialCPLR Article 78Administrative DiscretionDue ProcessEconomic HardshipNon-Essential BusinessJudicial ReviewMunicipal Regulations
References
6
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
Case No. 09-22-00116-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2024

Carlos David Rodriguez v. the State of Texas

Carlos David Rodriguez appealed his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child, J.G., after a jury found him guilty and sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment. Rodriguez challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, alleged a material variance in the indictment, complained about limitations during voir dire, and argued for the exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior allegations. He also raised issues concerning improper comments during closing arguments, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error across all seven issues raised.

Aggravated Sexual Assault of a ChildSufficiency of EvidenceMaterial VarianceVoir Dire LimitationExclusion of EvidenceImproper Closing ArgumentProsecutorial MisconductIneffective Assistance of CounselChild Victim TestimonySANE Examination
References
35
Case No. W1999-00844-CCA-R3-DD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2002

State v. McKinney

Timothy McKinney was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. The jury imposed a death sentence for the first-degree murder, citing a prior violent felony as an aggravating circumstance, and a consecutive twelve-year sentence for attempted second-degree murder. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, addressing various legal challenges. The Court found no error in denying expert testimony on eyewitness identification, upheld the clarity of the jury's verdict form on aggravating circumstances, and confirmed the sufficiency of evidence for the prior violent felony. It also ruled that the trial court's limitation on defense counsel's closing argument during the sentencing phase was harmless error and that victim impact evidence was properly admitted. Finally, the Court concluded that the death sentence was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate through a comparative proportionality analysis, aligning it with similar cases where capital punishment was upheld.

First Degree MurderAttempted Second Degree MurderDeath SentenceAggravating CircumstancePrior Violent FelonyEyewitness IdentificationVictim Impact EvidenceProportionality ReviewDue ProcessConstitutional Rights
References
46
Case No. S2 92 Cr. 530 (JES)
Regular Panel Decision

Riza v. United States

Shamsuddin Riza, acting pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition seeking to vacate or reduce his sentence, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Riza alleged his counsel failed to object to sentence enhancements stipulated in his plea agreement and to inaccuracies in his presentence investigation report (PSR). The District Court found Riza's petition procedurally barred because he knowingly waived his right to appeal a sentence within the Guidelines range and failed to establish cause or actual prejudice. Furthermore, the Court determined that Riza's ineffective assistance claim lacked merit as counsel was not obligated to file a frivolous appeal and the double counting argument regarding sentence enhancements was legally untenable. The Court also addressed Riza's claims regarding PSR inaccuracies and counsel's failure to object, concluding they did not rise to a constitutional level. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, but the Court ordered the October 14, 1993 sentencing transcript to be appended to Riza's PSR to correct a ministerial error.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel28 U.S.C. § 2255 PetitionHabeas CorpusSentencing EnhancementsPlea Agreement WaiverProcedural BarActual PrejudiceCause and PrejudicePresentence Investigation Report (PSR)Double Counting (Sentencing)
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 3,526 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