|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTOR CASTANO, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 05-80554—Lawrence P. Zatkoff, District Judge.
Argued: June 5, 2008
Decided and Filed: October 7, 2008
Before: MERRITT, MOORE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Victor Castano (“Castano”) appeals his convictions on charges of felon-in-possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Castano raises two arguments in his appeal. First, Castano challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to each of the two convictions. Second, Castano argues that errors in the verdict form and jury instructions for the § 924(c) charge amounted to plain error requiring reversal of that conviction. In particular, Castano argues that because the verdict form and portions of the jury instructions referred to the charge as being the “possession” of a firearm “during” a drug trafficking crime—which is a non-existent offense—substantial doubt exists as to whether the jury possibly convicted Castano of that non-existent offense instead of the § 924(c) charge on which he had been indicted, that of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE Castano’s § 924(c) conviction, AFFIRM his § 922(g) conviction, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
|
M.A.L., a minor child, by and through his parents and next friends, M.L. and S.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEPHEN KINSLAND, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 07-10391—Victoria A. Roberts, District Judge.
Argued: March 13, 2008
Decided and Filed: October 7, 2008
Before: KEITH, DAUGHTREY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This case presents the question of whether it is constitutional for a public middle school to regulate the time, place, and manner of a student’s speech by preventing him from handing out leaflets in school hallways between classes and instead allowing him to post his leaflets on hallway bulletin boards and to distribute them during lunch hours from a cafeteria table. The district court held that such a regulation of student speech is unconstitutional absent a showing that the speech is likely to cause a material and substantial interference with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of Jefferson Middle School’s distribution policy and its prohibition on the student’s hallway distribution. The court also awarded the student one dollar in nominal damages. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the district court’s entry of a permanent injunction and its award of nominal damages.
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERMAIN MARVIN ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 06-00312—Gordon J. Quist, District Judge.
Argued: September 16, 2008
Decided and Filed: October 7, 2008
Before: DAUGHTREY, GILMAN, and ALARCÓN, Circuit Judges.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Jermain Marvin Alexander pled guilty to one count of possessing crack cocaine with the intent to distribute the drug. The district court sentenced him to 360 months in prison, to be followed by five years of supervised release. Alexander contends for the first time on appeal that the district court erred by adopting the Presentence Report’s (PSR’s) finding that he was a “career offender.” He also argues that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.