Paralegal Mark Anthony Given compiles Winning Federal Cases published in the Federal Report on subjects from Criminal Law, Habeas Corpus, Social Security Disability and the Bureau of Prisons and is available for legal writing and research at

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

circuit split

We recognize that there is a circuit split on this issue. Compare Logal, 106
F.3d at 1552, with United States v. Christopher, 273 F.3d 294, 299 (3d Cir. 2001)
(concluding that the “order of restitution in this case is more compensatory in
nature than penal” and abatement should not apply to the order of restitution
because absolving “the estate from refunding the fruits of the wrongdoing would
grant an undeserved windfall”), and United States v. Dudley, 739 F.2d 175, 177
(4th Cir. 1984) (concluding that restitution order did not abate by reason of
defendant’s death because of restitution’s compensatory purposes). However, our
precedent is clear and binding on this panel. See United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d


Tuesday, January 16, 2007


Marshall v. Columbia Lea Reg'l Hosp., No. 05-2173 (10th Cir. January 09, 2007)A judgment for plaintiff on a civil rights claim brought against a city and police for violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure is affirmed where the officers conceded that they violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they ordered a warrantless, nonconsensual blood test for an alleged misdemeanor, and, contrary to their argument, the constitutional right was clearly established. [To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to]

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Former FBI employee repeatedly falsefying arrival times

Velikonja v. Gonzales, No. 05-5030, 05-5303 (D.C. Cir. October 17, 2006)Judgment for the government, in case brought by plaintiff former FBI employee alleging violations of Title VII, the Privacy Act, the Due Process Clause, and the First Amendment, related to investigation of plaintiff for repeatedly falsifying arrival times on her time sheets, is reversed as to count for discrimination and retaliation, as preventing an employee from receiving a promotion constitutes an adverse employment action, and the FBI's actions, as alleged, could dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Dean v. US, 436 F.Supp.2d 485 (E.D.NY)(June 28, 2006)
(denial of motion to expunge fingerprint records was not preclusive on issue of expungement of conviction; 2. defendant satisfied "continuing legal consequences" requirement for granting petition; 3. government was entitled to discovery on issue of whether defendant had unduly delayed petition, and 4; compelling reasons for granting petition existed)

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Fraud upon the court "not just a high hurdle to climb but a steep

Herring v. United States, 424 F.3d 384 (3rd Cir. 2005).
ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.
In this case we decide whether the Government’s assertion of military secrets privilege for an accident report discussing the October 6, 1948 crash of a B-29 bomber which killed three civilian engineers along with six military personnel, at Waycross, Georgia, was fraud upon the court.
Actions for fraud upon the court are so rare that this Court has not previously had the occasion to articulate a legal definition of the concept. The concept of fraud upon the court challenges the very principle upon which our judicial system is based: the finality of a judgment. The presumption against the reopening of a case that has gone through the appellate process all the way to the United States Supreme Court and reached final judgment must be not just a high hurdle to climb but a steep cliff-face to scale.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Workplace Privacy?

US v. Ziegler, 456 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2006).
(Huge privacy in the workplace exposition covering all the current law and statistics; fellow employees rat out coworker in internet provider firm for kiddie porn and then hand over hard ddrives to FBI).

Monday, September 11, 2006

Andretti v. Borla Performance Industries, Inc., 426 F.3d 824 (6th Cir. 2005)(Mario wins injunction for company violating his right to publicity by using his name and his statements in advertisement.