Jeffrey R. Howard
How Judge Howard rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Howard decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a traffic-stop suppression case, Howard tested an officer's asserted factual mistake against what the roadway actually showed. Reliance on a lane-ending sign was not objectively reasonable where the familiar road visibly merged two lanes and contradicted the sign's depiction.
“When confronted with a warning sign meaning 'Lane Ends' that depicted an abrupt end to the right lane and a roadway that, as the district court found, involved a merging of two lanes rather than either lane ending, it was not objectively reasonable for the officer to rely on the sign to govern the factual situation he was encountering.”
In criminal discovery disputes, Howard distinguished the government's disclosure duty from a defendant's request to inspect entire files. In-camera review requires a specific account of what favorable, material evidence the requested materials may contain and cannot rest on speculation alone.
“In sum, the district court's approach shifted from the government to the defendant the primary authority to assess whether material in the government's possession must be disclosed, and in so doing endorsed a broad rule of discovery in criminal cases; Brady permits neither.”
In a changed-country-conditions case, Howard required new evidence to be compared with conditions at the original merits hearing rather than with evidence from an earlier reopening motion. A contrary comparison could hide cumulative deterioration merely because motions were filed close together.
“In sum, the relevant evidentiary comparator for changed country conditions is the original merits hearing, not a previous motion to reopen.”
Procedural preferences
In reviewing a substantial upward sentencing variance, Howard required the court to identify the case-specific facts driving the departure and connect them to the selected sentence. Merely listing arrest facts and statutory aims did not explain why a sentence far above the guideline range was warranted.
“When imposing a significant variance, a sentencing court must make clear which specific facts of the case motivated its decision and why those facts led to its decision.”
Cautions
In a sentencing appeal, Howard required an objection to identify the particular error later raised. A general objection to including drugs did not preserve distinct arguments about evidentiary support or the need for an individualized relevant-conduct finding.
“González did not present to the district court the arguments that he now advances before us.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated, the IJ's credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore grant the petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings. So ordered.”
“We conclude that Zipperer's claims for negligence, equitable estoppel and negligent misrepresentation are preempted by ERISA. Affirmed.”
“For the reasons stated above, Holloway's conviction is affirmed, his sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.”
“As these conclusions are supported by substantial record evidence, the petition for review is denied.”
“For the above reasons, the plaintiffs have not shown a denial of rights secured by the Constitution, and as such the motion for judgment on the pleadings was properly granted. Affirmed.”
“Discerning substantial evidence in the record to support the BIA's determination, we deny the petition. ... The petitions for review are denied. It is so ordered.”
“In our view, the testimony of the government's knowledgeable witness, combined with the weight of authority, defeats appellant's staleness argument. ... Affirmed.”
“Because we agree with the district court that the record lacked evidence that Verizon's decisions with respect to Arroyo were either pretextual or motivated by discriminatory animus or policy, the judgment is affirmed.”
“Discerning no material factual or legal infirmity in the district court's disposition of the case, we affirm.”
“We affirm the district court's dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claims.”
“We reverse the exclusion order in No. 09-1450 (Prochilo), vacate the exclusion order in No. 09-1523 (Guerrero), and remand both cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“The district court denied the motion, finding that the conclusion had been adequately presented in the report and that there was neither error nor prejudice resulting from the admission of Dr. Rizzoli's testimony.”
Draft for Judge Howard with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Howard, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Howard's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace