List of cases Sotomayor has written (not comprehensive - work in progress)

[usregimechange]

SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge:

Defendant-appellant Ismail Ali Mohamed (“Mohamed”) appeals from a July 31, 2006
judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Amon, J.)
convicting him, following a jury trial, of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute a Schedule I controlled substance, cathinone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
846, and possession with intent to distribute a Schedule I controlled substance, cathinone, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).

On appeal, Mohamed argues that the trial evidence was insufficient to sustain the charges
against him because the government failed to prove that he knew that cathinone was a controlled
substance or that he conspired to deal in that particular substance. Because we conclude that the
government’s evidence was sufficient to show both that Mohamed knew that cathinone was a
controlled substance and that he conspired to possess and distribute that specific substance, we
affirm the judgment of conviction.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9f67d109-c910-4c19-bdba-73d8d7bf6508/13/doc/06-3647-cr_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9f67d109-c910-4c19-bdba-73d8d7bf6508/13/hilite/

[usregimechange]

1. United States v. McCOURTY

She joined and affirmed another case involving drug charges but they allowed the defendent to obtain re-sentencing in light of a supreme court ruling:

We AFFIRM the judgment of conviction and REMAND for the limited purpose of
19 allowing the District Court to re-sentence the Defendant in light of Kimbrough.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9f67d109-c910-4c19-bdba-73d8d7bf6508/24/doc/07-3862-cr_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9f67d109-c910-4c19-bdba-73d8d7bf6508/24/hilite/

Background:

In Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. ___ (2007), the Supreme Court confirmed that federal district judges have discretion to impose sentences outside the range dictated by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in cases involving conduct related to possession, distribution, and manufacture of crack cocaine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimbrough_v._United_States

[bettyellen]

2. ... i.m cuious to look at these later, thanks!

[usregimechange]

3. New York State Restaurant Association v. New York City Board of Health

She joined a ruling here that denied the New York State Restaurant Association's argument that regulations requiring nutritional content information on their menus violated the restaurant's first amendment rights:

In this case, the New York State Restaurant Association (“NYSRA”), a not-for-profit
business association of over 7,000 restaurants, challenges the constitutionality of New York City
Health Code § 81.50, which requires roughly ten percent of restaurants in New York City,
including chains such as McDonald’s, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken, to post calorie
content information on their menus and menu boards...

Furthermore,
although the restaurants are protected by the Constitution when they engage in commercial
speech, the First Amendment is not violated, where as here, the law in question mandates a
simple factual disclosure of caloric information and is reasonably related to New York City’s
goals of combating obesity...

For the reasons stated above, we reject NYSRA’s challenge to Regulation 81.50 because
we conclude that it is not preempted by the NLEA and does not violate NYSRA’s member
restaurants’ First Amendment rights. Because this panel did not grant a stay of enforcement of
the district court’s order and NYSRA and its member restaurants are complying with Regulation
81.50, or facing fines for non-compliance, no further action is required by this Court.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/188edcb8-db85-48cd-9cc0-3102475c2f28/10/doc/08-1892-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/188edcb8-db85-48cd-9cc0-3102475c2f28/10/hilite/


Looks like she stood strong against big business here.

[usregimechange]

4. Lebron v. Sanders - she joined granting an extention to file motions due to hardship in habeas case

Facts:

On March 25, 2008, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Robert P. Patterson, Jr., J.) denied Lebron’s habeas petition on the merits and declined to
issue a certificate of appealability.3 In its decision and order, the district court cited nine opinions
available only on the fee-based, electronic databases of Westlaw and Lexis or in the Federal
Appendix.4 Appellee had cited two of these opinions (not counting an unreported decision from
Lebron’s own case) in its opposition to Lebron’s habeas petition. Lebron timely filed a notice of
appeal and moved this Court for an extension of time to file a motion to proceed IFP. On May
27, 2008, the Court extended the deadline to file motions to proceed IFP and for a COA by
approximately five weeks and indicated that no further extensions would be granted.
Nonetheless, Lebron moved on June 26, 2008 for a ninety-day extension. Lebron explained that
he needed additional time to prepare his motions because he was unable to access all of the cases
cited by the district court and neither the district court nor the appellee had provided paper copies
after he had requested them to do so.

Conclusion:

For the foregoing reasons, the motion by appellant Elvin Lebron is GRANTED to the
extent that his motion to proceed IFP and for a COA is due within 30 days of this Order. In the
interest of judicial efficiency, the Court will send to Lebron, along with a copy of this Order, the
opinions from Westlaw, Lexis and the Federal Appendix to which the district court cited
(including those decisions that were also cited in appellee’s opposition to the habeas petition).
Furthermore, we remind counsel of the new obligation imposed by local rules of the Southern
and Eastern Districts of New York to provide pro se litigants with copies of unreported decisions
or decisions reported exclusively on computerized databases that are cited in their submissions to
court.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/188edcb8-db85-48cd-9cc0-3102475c2f28/9/doc/08-2054-pr_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/188edcb8-db85-48cd-9cc0-3102475c2f28/9/hilite/


Fairness and some empathy for the little guy, imo.

[usregimechange]

5. Joined ruling that reversed an order of deportation, siding again with the little guy

Facts:

Petition for review from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying Petitioners, a native citizen of China claiming political persecution and her Dominican-born son applying for derivative status, asylum and withholding of removal. The Board affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge, who, based on a two month “Residencia” visa, found that Petitioner was “firmly resettled” in the Dominican Republic, and therefore ineligible for asylum.

Ruling:

Given the identified errors in the BIA’s decision, we VACATE the BIA’s order of deportation, GRANT the petition for review, and REMAND the case to the BIA for reconsideration consistent with this opinion. We note, in passing, that as there is no longer a final order against Petitioners, they may now also file a successive petition for relief upon demonstrating either changed personal circumstances or country conditions that materially affect their eligibility for asylum.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/188edcb8-db85-48cd-9cc0-3102475c2f28/8/doc/07-3146-ag_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/188edcb8-db85-48cd-9cc0-3102475c2f28/8/hilite/

[usregimechange]

6. Finding here that a search resulting in firearm charge was based on "reasonable suspicion"

Hasan Simmons appeals from a judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, for the
crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and a
sentence of 175-months’ imprisonment, entered by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.). We affirm the district court’s denial of the
motion to suppress because the police officers, responding to a radio dispatch based on an
emergency 911 call that reported an assault in progress possibly involving a firearm, had
reasonable suspicion to stop and to search Simmons... However, we remand to the district court for resentencing.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. We REMAND to
the district court for resentencing.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/188edcb8-db85-48cd-9cc0-3102475c2f28/7/doc/07-5127-cr_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/188edcb8-db85-48cd-9cc0-3102475c2f28/7/hilite/

[usregimechange]

7. This one is above my pay grade, complicated financial institution case, court appears to have punted

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/188edcb8-db85-48cd-9cc0-3102475c2f28/6/doc/07-3372-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/188edcb8-db85-48cd-9cc0-3102475c2f28/6/hilite/

[usregimechange]

8. Joined upholding a drug sentence in part and remanding in part - middle of the road here, imo

For the reasons expressed in the accompanying summary order, Morales’s conviction is
affirmed. We remand for further proceedings concerning Morales’s sentence in conformance
with this opinion.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/188edcb8-db85-48cd-9cc0-3102475c2f28/5/doc/07-4202-cr_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/188edcb8-db85-48cd-9cc0-3102475c2f28/5/hilite/

[usregimechange]

9. Does the second circuit ever have a split decision?

[usregimechange]

10. So far she seems a lot like Justice Breyer, centrist on criminal law but fairly liberal on the rest

so far, haven't seen a lot of different types of cases yet.

[usregimechange]

11. She joined here siding with a school district over students but the district court really messed up

Defendants-appellants Yonkers School District, Superintendent Angelo Petrone, and
3 Principal Rocco Grassi (collectively, the “School District” or “Defendants”) appeal from a
4 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robinson,
5 J.) granting a motion filed by counsel for the plaintiffs-appellees, Carlos Garcia, Bruce Merlo,
6 and Lycelin Polanco (the “Individual Students”), on their behalf and on behalf of all similarly
7 situated persons (collectively, the “Students” or “Plaintiffs”), seeking attorney’s fees. The
8 District Court found that (1) the School District received adequate notice prior to the court’s oral
9 grant of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; (2) the Students were
10 prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees; and (3) the
11 amount of time spent on the case and the hourly rate proposed by the Students’ counsel were
12 appropriate and reasonable. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the District
13 Court granting attorney’s fees...

Here, the facts clearly show that the School District did not have a fair opportunity to
10 oppose the entry of the preliminary injunction at the hearing. The hearing was held at noon on
11 the same day the plaintiffs filed their complaint...

As explained above, the District Court reneged on its initial determination to grant the
23 preliminary injunction by indicating that a “definitive ruling” would be made after further
24 evidence by the School District was submitted. No preliminary injunction was signed despite the
25 District Court’s prior statement that it would do so...

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/188edcb8-db85-48cd-9cc0-3102475c2f28/3/doc/07-3167-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/188edcb8-db85-48cd-9cc0-3102475c2f28/3/hilite/

[FrenchieCat]

12. Thanks for the information!

She appears quite solid!

[usregimechange]

13. Oooh, she is railing in a dissent here about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

More on that once I finish reading all of it.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/b2092ca4-59a3-4b93-8003-014d8bfccf7e/7/doc/04-0743-cv%20w%20dissent.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/b2092ca4-59a3-4b93-8003-014d8bfccf7e/7/hilite/

[usregimechange]

14. More...

Because RFRA went so far beyond what the First Amendment required, the Boerne Court
understood the statute as “attempt a substantive change in constitutional protections”—a
change that Congress was not authorized to make.

She also cites the Lemon test which is very encouraging.

[usregimechange]

16. Expanded and continued here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8388366

[usregimechange]

15. She was a free speech warrior on this one...

Dissent: Uncharted Territory

In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Sotomayor noted that the court “enters uncharted territory in our First Amendment jurisprudence” by holding that the government does not violate the First Amendment when it fires a police department employee for racially inflammatory speech that (a) consisted of mailings in which the employee did not identify himself or connect himself to the police department; (b) occurred away from the office and on the employee’s own time; (c) was made by an employee without policy making authority or public contact; (d) was not shown to have been the direct cause of workplace disruption; and (e) was brought to the community’s attention only through the investigative efforts of two police departments.

Judge Sotomayor began her analysis by concluding that Mr. Pappas’ mailings constituted speech on a matter of public concern, because “issues of race relations are inherently of public concern.”

She distinguished the line of cases that stand for the proposition that speech is not on a matter of public concern if it is motivated by private interest, on the ground that each of these cases concerned an employee speaking about issues relating to his or her own employment.

Turning to the Pickering balancing analysis, Judge Sotomayor criticized the majority for failing adequately to consider the five factors identified above, each of which goes to the likelihood of Mr. Pappas’ speech disrupting the NYPD’s performance of its duties. She concluded that “he majority’s decision allows a government employer to launch an investigation, ferret out an employee’s
views anonymously expressed away from the workplace and unrelated to the employee’s job, bring the speech to the attention of the
media and the community, hold a public hearing, and then terminate the employee because, at that point, the government rea-
sonably believes that the speech would potentially … disrupt the government’s activities.”

Conclusion

As Judge Sotomayor’s dissent notes, this case may ultimately be read to diminish substantially the First Amendment protection
attached to anonymous political speech, based on public policy grounds. Whether district courts extend the majority ruling to
dampen First Amendment protections in other capacities remains to be seen.

New York Law Journal
http://www.paulweiss.com/files/Publication/d6b52e55-b8f0-4fbd-9836-2bcc53372b54/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/2cfe7c6f-69e8-4a6d-9099-201f948881cc/First%20Ammend.pdf

[blueclown]

17. Thanks for the info!

Very much appreciated.

[tkmorris]

18. Thank you for doing the research

This is a quality thread. K&R