Kenneth Francis Ripple

“If our review were de novo, the prosecutor's comments might give us significant pause. But in this habeas corpus case, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") limits our review. Under AEDPA's deferential standard, we must conclude that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin's decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”

“We decline to recognize an innocent possession defense to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in this case. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.”

“The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of counsel to withdraw. Mr. Smith's sentence is not unreasonable. We affirm the judgment of the district court.”

“Given the advent of Erlinger, we now know that the district court erred in declining to send the different-occasions question to a jury. This error, moreover, was not a harmless one. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

“Based on the record before it, the district court did not err in awarding costs to Wexford and Dr. Siddiqui. We therefore affirm the assessment of costs against Mr. Ebrahimi.”

“Because the terms of the contract did not permit a unilateral selection of an appraiser from the lists of the successor banks, and because Full Circle did not seek the approval of the Investor Limited Partner, Full Circle did not comply with the terms of the option and a contract was never formed. The district court therefore properly granted the motion for summary judgment.”

“Proceeding in this manner, our evaluation of the record convinces us that, even assuming Mr. Hudson's contentions concerning counsel's performance have merit, his petition still fails because he has not demonstrated that any possible deficiencies by his trial counsel were prejudicial.”

“In obtaining Mr. Rosario's cell-site location information, the officers relied in good faith on the procedures set forth in the Stored Communications Act. Moreover, the officers inevitably would have discovered Mr. Rosario's cell-site location information. The district court correctly ruled in denying Mr. Rosario's motion to suppress and his motion for a new trial. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

“Even taking all reasonable inferences in her favor, the record cannot support her contention that the Board discriminated or retaliated against her. We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Board.”

“An objectively reasonable officer, having consulted with the State's Attorney in the preparation of the complaint and affidavit accompanying the application for the warrant, could have relied in good faith on the search warrant that he obtained from a judge. The warrant here, although incomplete, was not so utterly lacking in indicia of probable cause that suppression is justified.”

“The district court correctly determined that Ms. Anderson has failed to raise a genuine issue of fact that her termination constituted an interference with her FMLA leave.”

“For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”