Anthony J. Scirica
How Judge Scirica rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Scirica decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In calculating criminal history, Scirica applied the sentencing guideline's express treatment of diversion after a no-contest plea. Later dismissal of the state charges did not erase the plea's effect where the guideline unambiguously counted that form of disposition.
“Section 4A1.2(f) is unequivocal. ‘A diversionary disposition resulting from ... a plea of nolo contendere in a judicial proceeding is counted....’”
In an antitrust class-certification appeal, Scirica required the reliability of expert proof to be tested before it was used to establish Rule 23 requirements. An applicable challenge to that evidence could not simply be postponed to the merits stage.
“Because we find that the District Court had no opportunity to consider the implications of Comcast and hold that, if applicable, a court must resolve any Daubert challenges to expert testimony offered to demonstrate conformity with Rule 23, we vacate and remand.”
In the Bridgegate prosecution, Scirica required fair warning before an unsettled constitutional right could support criminal civil-rights liability. One binding circuit decision did not make the rule sufficiently clear when other courts disagreed about whether the right existed or what it covered.
“Accordingly, we apply the same test as in qualified immunity cases, asking whether the right allegedly deprived was clearly established.”
Procedural preferences
In an early post-Booker sentencing appeal, Scirica remanded without resolving record-dependent sentencing questions himself. The district court was the proper forum to address those issues first under the changed legal framework.
“Having determined that the sentencing issues appellant raises are best determined by the District Court in the first instance, we will vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with Booker.”
Cautions
In reviewing counsel's request to withdraw from a criminal appeal, Scirica independently examined the record after confirming that counsel had identified and explained the strongest potential issues. The absence of a merits brief did not turn review into a formality.
“Upon independent examination of the record, we agree that there are no nonfrivolous arguments Hobbs can make to challenge his sentence.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Ruling the fine was a ‘foreseeable’ construction of the Virgin Islands juvenile statute, 5 V.I.C. §§ 2501-54 (1983), the Appellate Division affirmed the Territorial Court's judgment. We will reverse.”
“In this inverse condemnation action, 287 Corporate Center Associates (‘Associates’) sued the Township of Bridgewater (‘Township’) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution for allegedly taking its property without just compensation. The district court dismissed the [case] as time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. Associates has appealed. We will affirm.”
“Section 4A1.2(f) is unequivocal. ‘A diversionary disposition resulting from ... a plea of nolo contendere in a judicial proceeding is counted....’ ... Amster cannot avoid the effect of his prior pleas on his present sentence. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of sentence.”
“We agree with the District Court that the petition was time-barred, and accordingly, we will affirm.”
“The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in temporarily sealing the initial filings and hearings concerning a contempt motion filed under Fed. R.Crim.P. 6(e)(2) pending its determination whether secret grand jury material would be disclosed. ... We will affirm.”
“This is an appeal in a diversity case from an order dismissing a physician's deceptive marketing claim under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (CPL) for lack of standing. We will affirm.”
“We will affirm the District Court's issuance of the injunction, but reverse with respect to the propriety of the removal.”
“The District Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to meet the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 et seq (‘PSLRA’). While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court set forth the pleading standard for the PSLRA. ... We will affirm.”
“Reddy Cheruku filed a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming denial of her application to adjust her status to that of a lawful permanent resident under the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act ... because she was found inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). We will deny the petition for review.”
“On appeal, HR contends the court ignored our mandate. We will affirm.”
“Appellants Plant Performance Services, LLC (‘P2S’) and Fluor Corporation seek reversal of an order denying their request for a stay pending arbitration. We will affirm.”
“Because we find the Federal Aviation Administration's decision was not ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,’ 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), we will deny the petition for review.”
Draft for Judge Scirica with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Scirica, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Scirica's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace