District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania — appointed by Richard Nixon
ROTHENBECKER v. Astrue
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2011-02-01 · cited 7×
The case concerned a motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) after Plaintiff Dennis Rothenbecker, Sr. prevailed in his Social Security disability insurance benefits claim. Following a remand, the plaintiff received $135,000 in retroactive benefits, with $33,853 withheld for potential fees; counsel requested $28,853 based on a 25% contingent fee agreement, while the Commissioner argued for a reduction to between $9,760 and $14,640 due to the fee's proportion to the 24.2 hours worked. The court awarded $24,896.38 in fees, directing reimbursement of a prior $4,326.38 EAJA award, after determining an effective hourly rate of $850 was appropriate given counsel's $400 non-contingent rate, over 25 years of experience, and the case's successful outcome despite prior denials. The decision accounted for the risks of contingent representation and reduced the requested amount accordingly.
labor & employmentprocedure
ELASHI v. Sabol
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2010-03-18 · cited 2×
In this habeas corpus case, Bayan Elashi, a Palestinian native convicted of multiple federal offenses including money laundering and sanctions violations, challenged his continued post-removal-order detention by ICE after completing an 84-month prison sentence. The court granted the petition and ordered his release under supervised conditions within three weeks, finding that more than seven months had passed since the six-month presumptively reasonable detention period under Zadvydas v. Davis expired without meaningful progress toward removal to Gaza or the West Bank. The government failed to rebut Elashi's evidence of no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, despite prior diplomatic efforts and an interagency meeting, as no authority existed to compel repatriation.
immigrationcriminal lawfederal power
Tedesco v. United States
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2010-02-04
This case concerns whether Michele S. Tedesco is personally liable under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 for unpaid federal employment taxes (trust fund taxes) that should have been withheld by R & M Tedesco Contracting, Inc. The court granted partial summary judgment, ruling that Tedesco is not liable for taxes from the four quarters ending December 31, 2004 through September 30, 2005, and is entitled to a refund of $3,260.28, but is liable for taxes from the three quarters ending December 31, 2005 through June 30, 2006, and must pay a $648.09 penalty. The core reasoning was that Tedesco became a responsible person in October 2005, was aware of the unpaid taxes, and willfully failed to remit them by signing checks to other creditors instead. The claims against third-party defendant Ricky Tedesco were resolved separately by default judgment.
taxesbusiness & regulatory
United States v. Hammer
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2005-12-27 · cited 12×
The case involves David Paul Hammer's fourth amended motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his federal conviction and death sentence for the first-degree murder of his cellmate, Andrew Marti, at a U.S. penitentiary in 1996. Hammer had been tried and sentenced to death after a jury found the murder involved substantial planning and premeditation, despite his insanity defense and extensive post-trial mental health evaluations. The court addressed numerous claims, including government failures to disclose FBI 302 statements under Brady v. Maryland and issues related to mitigating factors and alleged miscarriages of justice. The court vacated the death sentence, reasoning that the undisclosed statements undermined confidence in the jury's determination of substantial planning and premeditation required for the capital penalty.
criminal lawprocedure
United States v. Barner
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2003-08-07 · cited 1×
This case concerns a motion by attorney John A. Gummo, appointed under the Criminal Justice Act to represent Brian Barner in a federal drug prosecution, seeking compensation for time spent testifying and assisting in Barner's later 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The court had previously denied Barner's § 2255 motion on the merits, finding Gummo's representation constitutionally adequate, and Gummo now requests $14,235.50 for the time he was subpoenaed to devote to the post-conviction litigation. The court certified that the requested amount is reasonably necessary and required to provide fair compensation for services of an unusual character and duration under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, because Gummo incurred these opportunity costs involuntarily, the hours were reasonable and necessary to resolve the § 2255 motion, and the compensation furthers the Act's goal of easing burdens on CJA panel attorneys while ensuring adequate representation for indigent defendants; the matter was referred to the chief judge of the circuit for final approval due to the amount exceeding the district court's limit.
criminal lawprocedure
United States v. O'Driscoll
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2002-10-18 · cited 4×
In this federal capital murder case, defendant Michael J. O'Driscoll moved to dismiss the aggravating factors supporting the death penalty on the ground that the government failed to furnish a witness list at least three days before jury selection as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3432. The court postponed voir dire, the government supplied the list on October 8, 2002, and jury selection was reset for October 23. Because the reset date afforded the defendant more than the statutory three days' notice, the motion was denied as moot. The opinion recounts the statute's history and prior case law interpreting its timing requirement but concludes that no further relief was available once the procedural defect had been cured by the continuance.
criminal lawprocedure