Sam A. Crow

The case involves criminal charges against defendants Robert Blechman and Michael Sofris for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to commit bankruptcy fraud by making false oaths and statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152, and for criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 401 by violating a federal judge's release conditions through false bankruptcy filings. All alleged acts, including Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions filed in California concerning California property, occurred outside Kansas, prompting pretrial motions to dismiss count one for lack of venue in the District of Kansas, to dismiss count two, and related requests for bills of particulars or James hearings. The court granted joinder of some motions but addressed the venue challenge by noting that Rule 12 permits pretrial dismissal only when no factual development at trial is needed to resolve the issue, and it considered whether overt acts or other connections could establish venue in Kansas. The core reasoning focused on the requirement that venue must be proven as alleged in the indictment and that contested facts about the conspiracy's scope or covering acts could not be resolved pretrial without invading the general issue of guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an appeal of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits and disabled widow's benefits to the plaintiff, who alleged onset of disability in 2006 due to spinal conditions, reflux, and fibromyalgia. The ALJ found the plaintiff not disabled after determining at steps two through four that her impairments were severe but did not meet a listing, that she retained the residual functional capacity for light work, and that she could perform her past work. The court held that the ALJ committed legal error by failing to give proper weight to the treating physician's opinions on fibromyalgia limitations, improperly demanding objective evidence beyond consistent trigger-point findings and the plaintiff's documented complaints of pain and fatigue. The judgment was reversed and remanded under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration of those medical opinions, with other issues left unaddressed pending that review.

healthcareprocedurefederal power

The case involves the Sharps, who filed a state court action under Kansas law seeking interest on ERISA benefits that Wellmark had already paid pursuant to a prior settlement. Wellmark removed the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under ERISA's civil enforcement provisions, and the Sharps moved to remand, arguing lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the claim for interest on delayed ERISA benefits is completely preempted by ERISA because it falls within the scope of the federal statute's remedies, specifically as a request for appropriate equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B). The reasoning centered on ERISA's complete preemption doctrine, which displaces state-law claims that can be recharacterized as federal ERISA claims, distinguishing it from mere conflict preemption that would not support removal.

federal powerhealthcarelabor & employmentprocedure

The case involves a plaintiff suing the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and several individuals under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating his constitutional rights by placing him in an abusive foster home during his childhood. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. It found that the claims against the state agency were barred by sovereign immunity and failed to state a claim, the individual employees were protected by qualified immunity due to insufficient allegations of rights violations, and the claims against the former foster parents were precluded by res judicata from a prior state court judgment. The court also dismissed claims against unnamed defendants because fictitious parties are not permitted.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

The case involves Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG), an interstate natural gas pipeline operator subject to federal regulation by FERC under the Natural Gas Act, challenging Kansas statutes and Kansas Corporation Commission regulations governing underground gas storage facilities. CIG sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the state laws are preempted by the NGA and Pipeline Safety Act and thus violate the Supremacy Clause. The court, relying on stipulated facts about CIG's FERC-certified Boehm Gas Storage Field and the state's post-2001 regulatory response to a storage incident, granted summary judgment to CIG. It held that the state requirements are preempted because they impose additional permitting and compliance obligations that conflict with FERC's exclusive authority over the construction, operation, and abandonment of interstate storage facilities. The core reasoning is that section 1(b) of the NGA establishes a field of exclusive federal regulation, and state efforts to enforce separate standards on FERC-jurisdictional facilities exceed state authority.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case concerns Kansas State University and K-State Athletics, Inc.'s state-court declaratory judgment action against former football coach Ron Prince and his company, seeking a ruling that a Memorandum of Understanding providing for extra payments upon termination without cause is invalid or unenforceable. The defendants removed the case to federal court solely on diversity jurisdiction grounds. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction after analyzing the citizenship of the parties and applicability of the fraudulent joinder doctrine, while denying any award of costs or attorney fees related to the removal.

procedurelabor & employment

The case involved resentencing of a defendant who pleaded guilty to felony possession of a firearm, where the key dispute was whether his prior conviction for escape from a halfway house under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) qualified as a 'crime of violence' under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 and § 4B1.2, which would increase his guideline range. After the Tenth Circuit remanded in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Chambers v. United States, the district court sustained the defendant's objection to the PSR. The court applied the categorical approach from Begay and Chambers, concluding that the escape offense did not involve conduct roughly similar in kind or degree of risk to enumerated offenses like burglary, as it lacked the purposeful, violent, and aggressive elements typically required. This resulted in a lower criminal history calculation and guideline range of 37 to 46 months.

criminal law

This case involved professional dog handlers Dennis and Audra Snyder, who were not AKC members, suing the American Kennel Club for tortious interference with existing and prospective contracts and for libel after the AKC suspended them from AKC events based on findings of cruelty and neglect involving a dog they handled at a 2005 show. The plaintiffs sought damages, claiming the suspensions and related newsletter publications deprived them of their livelihood, while the AKC moved to dismiss or for summary judgment and the plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the cruelty findings. The court treated the motions as ones for summary judgment under Rule 56 after considering evidence outside the pleadings, applied the summary judgment standard requiring no genuine issue of material fact, and granted the AKC's motion while denying the plaintiffs'. The core reasoning was that the AKC's actions were privileged under Kansas law governing defamation and interference claims, the record showed no evidence of malice or lack of justification that could overcome the privilege, and issues like collateral estoppel from a prior suit did not apply to defeat the privilege or create triable facts.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Corber, the defendant moved to reduce his 136-month sentence for distributing cocaine base under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), citing Amendment 706's two-level reduction in the base offense level for crack cocaine quantities. The original sentence resulted from a jury conviction, application of the career offender guideline under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 due to prior burglary convictions, and a downward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that yielded a term below the career offender range but above the non-enhanced drug guideline range. The court dismissed the motions, holding that the sentence was based on the career offender provision rather than the drug quantity table affected by Amendment 706, so the amendment did not lower the defendant's applicable guideline range and relief was unavailable under the statute and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Kansas residents and professional dog show handlers who sued the American Kennel Club (AKC) after the organization suspended their privileges for ten years following findings of animal cruelty and neglect related to a Golden Retriever at a 2005 dog show. The plaintiffs alleged violations of common law due process under New York law, arbitrary and capricious evidentiary findings, intentional interference with contract rights under Kansas law, and libel from the AKC's publication of the suspensions, and they sought a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the penalties. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that judicial review of private association disciplinary actions is limited to assessing whether common law due process was provided and whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious rather than a reasonable business judgment, without reweighing evidence or reassessing credibility. Given the conflicting testimony at the AKC hearing and the additional elements required to prove the plaintiffs' claims, the court found insufficient likelihood of success on the merits.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Aaron Hartwell's motion to suppress evidence seized from his rental house in Michigan pursuant to a search warrant. Hartwell was charged with drug trafficking after over 200 pounds of marijuana were discovered in a plane he was piloting from California to Michigan. The court denied the motion, finding that the supporting affidavit established probable cause to believe evidence of drug trafficking would be found at the residence based on the totality of the circumstances, including the suspicious flight and the defendant's involvement. Additionally, the court held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule would apply even if probable cause were lacking.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Roberts, the defendant, charged as a felon in possession of ammunition and firearms, filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence including a white Lincoln Town Car, items seized from the car on May 2 and May 8, 2008, and items from a residence search, arguing lack of legal cause for the initial stop, insufficient probable cause for the warrant, and improper seizures. The court denied the motion after a hearing, finding the traffic stop lawful, the car searches justified under the automobile exception even when conducted later at the station, and the residence warrant supported by probable cause from the defendant's history of violence, firearms involvement, and recent suspicious actions toward an officer. The ruling relied on established Fourth Amendment precedents allowing warrantless vehicle searches based on probable cause and the validity of the affidavit detailing the defendant's known criminal ties and conduct.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hall v. Witteman, plaintiff George Milam Hall sued multiple defendants, including Judge Phillip M. Fromme, attorneys, bar associations, and a newspaper publisher, after his paid advertisement urging voters not to retain Judge Fromme was published only once instead of twice in The Coffey County Republican, which instead ran a responsive advertisement supporting the judge. Hall asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and RICO, along with state law claims, alleging coercion of the publisher, libel, and interference with his efforts related to the November 2006 judicial retention election. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the complaint failed to state plausible claims under the federal statutes invoked, as there was no sufficient allegation of state action, conspiracy, or racketeering activity. With no remaining federal claims, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

electionsfree speechcivil rights

This case involves a physician who sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, claiming negligence by a VA hospital in its internal investigation and report to the National Practitioner Data Bank that held him responsible for a patient's death during a procedure. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, finding the government's response timely under federal rules, and granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA barred the claims, along with conceded exceptions for defamation and injunctive relief, and that administrative remedies had not been exhausted. The court later denied reconsideration of its dismissal order.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

The case involves a defendant who pleaded guilty to felony possession of a firearm and objected to the presentence report's recommendation of a base offense level of 24 under the sentencing guidelines, based on two prior felony convictions including one for escape from a halfway house. The court considered whether that escape conviction qualified as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)'s residual clause after the Supreme Court's decision in Begay v. United States, which addressed the similar "violent felony" definition in the Armed Career Criminal Act. Applying the categorical approach, the court examined the statutory elements of the federal escape offense rather than the specific facts of the defendant's conduct and reviewed Tenth Circuit precedent holding that escape categorically presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. The court analyzed whether Begay's additional requirement—that the offense be roughly similar in kind to enumerated crimes like burglary, by involving purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct—altered the outcome for escape convictions. It concluded that the escape offense meets this standard and remains a crime of violence, overruling the defendant's objection and applying the higher guideline range.

criminal lawguns

In United States v. Martino, the defendants were charged in a March 2008 indictment with possession with intent to distribute marijuana and related forfeiture counts; defendant Martino, who was detained, repeatedly objected to continuances requested by his codefendant Hartwell and moved to dismiss the indictment, asserting that the Speedy Trial Act’s 70-day period had expired on June 6, 2008. The district court denied Martino’s motion to dismiss and related speedy-trial objections, while finding the codefendant’s continuance motions moot after a superseding indictment. The court reasoned that multiple periods were properly excluded from the speedy-trial clock under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h), including time attributable to pretrial motions filed by both defendants and the reasonable delay from the codefendant’s proceedings, resulting in only 22 days having elapsed by the time Martino filed his dismissal motion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an ERISA claim by plaintiff Niles against American Airlines and MetLife for disability benefits, remanded by the Tenth Circuit for reconsideration of evidentiary rulings on certain medical exhibits related to a functional capacity examination (FCE). The court determined that the exhibits were not disclosed as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and were not offered solely for impeachment purposes, leading to their exclusion under Rule 37. On the merits, the court found that the remaining evidence, including the FCE results showing capacity for light or medium work and the lack of objective support for the plaintiff's subjective complaints of disabling pain, failed to meet the plaintiff's burden of proving total disability from any occupation. The court therefore denied the claim for disability benefits.

labor & employmentprocedurehealthcare

This case involved a former Jostens employee born in Mexico who alleged national origin discrimination in the terms and conditions of his employment and in his termination, as well as retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment. It found that the employee received multiple disciplinary warnings for documented performance issues such as inaccurate counting and low productivity, that terminations at the company affected employees of various backgrounds, and that the employee failed to present evidence showing the employer's stated reasons were pretextual. The court further held that no reasonable jury could find retaliation because the employer issued additional warnings after the employee's grievance rather than immediately terminating him.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a one-count indictment charging defendant with unlawful reentry into the United States after prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction for drug possession, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Defendant moved to suppress statements and evidence obtained after law enforcement entered his residence without a warrant, arguing a violation of the Fourth Amendment under Payton v. New York. The court denied the motion to suppress. It reasoned that, as a previously deported aggravated felon who had illegally reentered, the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the residence that society would recognize, and thus had no Fourth Amendment protection to assert against the search. The court reached this conclusion after taking judicial notice of the defendant's criminal and deportation history and applying precedents on the scope of Fourth Amendment rights.

immigrationcriminal law

This case involves a prisoner’s civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him from two assaults by other inmates, along with related Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims. The plaintiff described being attacked while in a medical pod, claimed that officers allowed unauthorized entry or failed to monitor properly, and asserted that certain defendants received notice via grievances and reports but did not transfer him or provide adequate protection. The court addressed the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider a prior order, his motions to compel, and the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It denied the motion to reconsider and the motions to compel, granted the motion to dismiss, and concluded that the allegations did not sufficiently plead deliberate indifference or other required elements under applicable pleading standards such as those in Twombly.

civil rightsprocedure