« Ind. Gov't. - Lawmakers' benefits getting close look | Main | Environment - "Cleaning up brownfields is a good real estate investment" »

Monday, January 09, 2006

Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit rules on two Indiana-related cases today

In USA v. Brock, David C (SD Ind., Chief Judge Larry J. McKinney), Chief Judge Flaum writes:

Following a jury trial, Defendant David C. Brock (“Brock”) was found guilty of two counts of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine; two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine (500 grams and an unspecified amount); and two counts of felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Brock to 360 months imprisonment on the drug counts and 120 months, to be served concurrently, on the felon-in-possession counts.

Brock appealed, challenging his conviction and sentence. See United States v. Brock, 417 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2005). We affirmed Brock’s conviction, but found that Brock’s sentence violated the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We remanded to the district court, pursuant to United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005), to allow the sentencing judge to determine whether, if required to resentence under the now-advisory sentencing guidelines regime, he would reimpose Brock’s original sentence.

On remand, the district court stated that it would have given Brock the same sentence had the sentencing guidelines been advisory at the time it sentenced him. Brock now appeals from the district court’s order on remand. For the following reasons, we affirm the order of the district court. * * *

Because the district court would have imposed the same sentence post-Booker and because the sentence is reasonable, we conclude that Brock’s sentence was not the result of plain error. Additionally, we decline to reconsider the Paladino limited remand approach.

For commentary, see this entry from Decision of the Day, titled "Meaningless Remands under Booker?"

In Shares, Inc v. NLRB, Judge Cudahy writes:

Shares, Inc. (Shares) is a nonprofit [Indiana] corporation that trains and employs disabled individuals who perform primarily industrial tasks for customers. Wellman Automotive Parts (Wellman) retained Shares’ services to package the glow plugs that it manufactured for diesel engines. [Wellman bought a manufacturing facility in Shelbyville, Indiana, in 1988.] When Wellman entered bankruptcy in 2003, Shares decided to move to the manufacturing side of the glow plug business. Toward that end, Shares formed a new company (WAP, LLC), purchased Wellman’s machinery and hired many of Wellman’s former employees. These employees belonged to the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). When Shares refused to bargain with the UAW, the union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB concluded that Shares is Wellman’s successor and is therefore obligated to bargain with the UAW under 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5) and (1). Shares petitions this Court for review, and the NLRB cross-applies for enforcement of its bargaining order against Shares. We deny Shares’s petition and grant the NLRB’s cross-application.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 9, 2006 12:30 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions