Here:
Question presented:
The question presented is: whether the Ninth Circuit’s decision contravenes the basic administrative law principle, established by this Court’s decisions, that an executive agency may change the policies of a previous administration based on the new administration’s different values and priorities, even though the relevant facts are unchanged.
Here are the briefs in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District:
2016-02-18 – Dkt 036 – Brief of Amici Curiae Law Professors in Support of Appellee
Here:
The Ninth Circuit panel decided this one way back in 2013, but withdrew the opinion to await the en banc decision in United States v. Zepeda.
Here is the petition:
Question presented:
Section 117(a) of Title 18, United States Code, makes it a federal crime for any person to “commit[] a domestic assault within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or Indian country” if the person “has a final conviction on at least 2 separate prior occasions in Federal, State, or Indian tribal court proceedings for” enumerated domestic-violence offenses. 18 U.S.C. 117(a).
Here are the materials in Alto v. Jewell (S.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Cascadia Wildlands Opening Brief
Here are the materials in United States v. Aubrey:
An excerpt:
For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1163, funds paid from an Indian tribal organization to a contractor continue to be “property belonging to any Indian tribal organization,” as long as the tribal organization maintains sufficient supervision and control of disbursed funds and their ultimate use. Accordingly, we reject William Aubrey’s contention that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to prove that he converted or misused property belonging to an Indian tribal organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1163. We also deny Aubrey’s other challenges to his conviction and sentencing.
Here are the materials in United States v. Augare:
From the court’s syllabus:
The panel affirmed a sentence in a case in which the district court applied a “sophisticated means” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) following the defendant’s guilty plea to conspiracy to defraud the United States, False Claims Act conspiracy, theft from an Indian tribe receiving federal funding, and federal income tax evasion.
The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it applied the “sophisticated means” enhancement to the defendant’s offense conduct. The panel explained that the coordinated and repetitive steps that the defendant took to transfer money from the Po’Ka project to his personal bank account are comparable in complexity and sophistication to the schemes held to warrant the enhancement in both this court’s precedent and persuasive authority from other circuits.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.