Lavenski Roy Smith

“Because the Village ordinance is content neutral, has been narrowly tailored to serve the Village's significant governmental interests, leaves ample alternatives for Havlak to communicate her message, and does not provide the Village with unbridled discretion, we find the permit process survives Havlak's challenge.”

“On appeal, HHS and the EEOC (collectively, "the government") challenge the district court's grant of declaratory and permanent injunctive relief to the plaintiffs, arguing that the district court erred in determining "that plaintiffs had demonstrated standing, ripeness, and imminent irreparable injury sufficient to justify permanent injunctive relief." Appellants' Br. at ii. We affirm.”

“We affirm the district court, but we modify Henderson's revocation judgment to reflect accurately that he violated only special conditions 8 and 9 of his supervised release.”

“Judge Newsham's handling of King's case does not present a final policy or custom that can give rise to a § 1983 action. Because King failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the district court's dismissal of the action was proper.”

“I concur in all but Part III.B.2 of the court's opinion. I would affirm the district court's dismissal of the hoarding claim. I conclude that China's behavior lacks "a direct effect in the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2).”

“James Thomas appeals his nine-month sentence imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. We affirm.”

“The record sufficiently supports the jury's finding that Fisher had knowledge of his prohibited status. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”

“Because the district court applied a lower standard of proof, found facts that are not supported by the sentencing record and are not judicially noticeable, and impermissibly shifted the government's burden of proof to Sutton, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion. The sex-offender-related special conditions that Sutton appeals are vacated, and the case is remanded.”

“Rodney Dale Smith appeals his sentence of 37 months' imprisonment, arguing that the district court plainly erred by fashioning the length of his sentence to provide rehabilitation opportunities, in violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011). We agree and reverse.”

“We conclude that the PBMs unambiguously and unequivocally ascertained that the February 14, 2022 Red Flag Analysis allowed removal of the case. ... Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order to remand the case to the state court.”

“We conclude that the government did not breach the plea agreement. ... The district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence.”

“The plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring their claims. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”