William J. Nardini

“We conclude that Rosa's sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to state its reasons for the sentence imposed as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). We therefore REMAND the case to the district court to conduct a resentencing.”

“Because we hold that Holloway was eligible for relief under the plain language of the Act, we VACATE the order denying the motion and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

“We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.”

“We conclude that an intervening development in case law does not constitute a newly discovered “fact” within the meaning of § 2255(f)(4). We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.”

“We hold that Gilliam is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his offense of conviction, drug-related murder in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A), is not a “covered offense” under the First Step Act. Thus, we AFFIRM the order below.”

“In 18 U.S.C. § 666, Congress used broad terms to prohibit bribery in relation to federally funded programs. ... AFFIRMED.”

“Because Cassidy's motion complied with the requirements of Rule 27, we GRANT her motion to withdraw as Fleming's counsel. In addition, the Government moves for summary affirmance of the district court's decision on the grounds that Fleming's motion presents no non-frivolous issues on appeal. We disagree, and therefore DENY the Government's motion for summary affirmance.”

“We find no merit in any of these claims. AFFIRMED.”

“We hold that we lack jurisdiction to review both the agency's decision to allow Juras to withdraw his application and to deny Juras's motion to reopen, and accordingly DISMISS the petitions insofar as they challenge those decisions. However, ... we GRANT the petition for review in 19-3001 in part and REMAND the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals to clarify what, if any, preclusive effect the Immigration Judge's inadmissibility finding ... would be given in subsequent immigration proceedings.”

“Likewise, any procedural error by the state court in following the three-step Batson framework would not, without more, constitute a violation of a federal constitutional right. We therefore AFFIRM the district court's judgment.”

“Applying the categorical approach, we now hold—joining the seven other Courts of Appeals that have considered the issue—that Hobbs Act robbery is not categorically a “crime of violence” under § 4B1.2(a) because it can apply to violence against property, not just against people. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.”

“Because we conclude that the BIA here properly applied these standards of review, we DENY the petition for review.”