Thursday, April 14, 2005
Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit posts three today
Rodriguez, Harry v. Briley, Kenneth (ND Ill.) [3 pp.]
Before BAUER, POSNER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge. * * * At some point, refusal to eat might turn suicidal and then the prison would have to intervene. E.g., Matos ex rel. Matos v. O’Sullivan, 335 F.3d 553, 557 (7th Cir. 2003). Likewise if noncompliance with the rule were a product of insanity. Both situations are illustrated by Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 729-34 (7th Cir. 2001). Neither is present here. AFFIRMED.
Huang, Xiu Ping v. Gonzales, Alberto R. (Board of Immigration Appeals) [12 pp.]
Before KANNE, WOOD, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge. Chinese citizen Xiu Ping Huang applied for asylum, claiming that she would be persecuted because of her membership in an illegal Catholic church if she returned to China. An immigration judge denied Huang’s application after a hearing because he found that she was not credible and had failed to corroborate her testimony, even though the judge acknowledged that members of underground Catholic churches in China face widespread persecution. During the hearing, however, the immigration judge repeatedly interrupted the examination conducted by Huang’s attorney and questioned Huang extensively about her Catholic beliefs and practices. In discrediting Huang, the immigration judge relied heavily on what he thought were unsatisfactory answers to his questions—all of which were based on information outside of the record. Our concerns about the judge’s conduct during the hearing lead us to conclude that his decision is not supported by substantial evidence and, accordingly, we grant Huang’s petition for review.
USA v. Macedo, Gregorio (ND Ill.) [27 pp.]
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge. Gregorio Macedo and Victor Hugo Contreras were convicted of various drug offenses. Defendant Macedo alleges several violations of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), which he contends render his convictions and sentence infirm. He also argues that the government lacked sufficient evidence to support his convictions. Defendant Contreras argues that evidence of prior bad acts was improperly admitted in violation of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The government also appeals the district court’s decision to grant defendant Contreras a one point downward departure based on his alien status. We affirm both convictions. However, because we find that the district court erred in its decision to downward depart, we must remand defendant Contreras for resentencing. In addition, in response to Macedo’s petition for rehearing, we vacate his sentence as well and remand his case for resentencing consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 14, 2005 11:54 AM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions