This appears to be a mine-run case and not the unusual case outside the heartland. Certainly‚ Funk is not the unusually sympathetic and repentant figure depicted in Gall‚ 128 S. Ct. at 600-02‚ and the district court recognized as much. Funk‚ 477 F.3d at 424-25. And‚ unlike the 100-to-1 crack-to-cocaine ratio in Kimbrough‚ 128 S. Ct. at 575‚ the career offender guideline in this case (§ 4B1.1) is exactly the type of guideline issue that “exemplif[ies] the
Premium United States Appeal Supreme Court of the United States
In the case of Keller v. Inland Metals All Weather Conditioning‚ Inc. Inland Metals did have an express warranty with the humidifier it sold to Keller. According to NOLO (2015) “an express warranty is a verbal or written statement that guarantees that a product is of a certain quality or will work in a certain way or for a certain amount of time.” In the case of Keller v. Inland Metal‚ Inland Metals provided both verbal and written statements about the quality of the humidifier they sold the
Premium Management Employment Law
Roberts v Colorado State is a case based on former members of the Colorado State University women’s varsity softball team ("ROBERTS v. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY | Leagle.com‚" n.d.). During the summer of the 1992‚ CSU experienced many financial burdens as their state aid was taken away and many beneficiaries bailed out. This put the school in a deficit‚ causing them to drop many of their sports teams. One of which was the women’s softball team. The players found this to be wrong because they were
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Jury
In Canada‚ we are privileged to have a lot of rights that benefit us. In the movie‚ V for Vendetta they are not as fortunate as we are. There are many examples to prove that they didn’t have many rights as we do. To begin with‚ we have equality rights; everyone gets treated the same. Homosexuality is allowed and gets treated fairly. In the movie‚ those that were a part of the gay/lesbian community were sent to concentration camps or jails. When they were taken there‚ the people tortured them
Premium Human rights V for Vendetta United Kingdom
After reviewing the United States v. Parks case‚ I believe that Parks should have been charged with a crime. The responsible corporate officer doctrine states that even if the corporate officer did not know about the crime or engage in the crime then the court can still find the officer criminally liable (Kubasek‚ 2017 p. 161). In this case‚ Parks received a warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration and still failed to correct the unsanitary conditions. Parks should be convicted even
Premium Crime Automobile Ford Motor Company
EEOC v. Federal Express (2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 1260 [4th Cir.]) Facts: FedEx appealed a case awarding a disabled employee‚ Ronald Lockhart‚ with compensatory and punitive damages. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) the employer must be acting with malice for punitive damages to be awarded; in addition‚ there was evidence that questioned if punitive damages were warranted. FedEx claimed that Lockhart’s supervisors failed to accommodate him at work‚ not FedEx‚ and they did engage in a
Premium United States Law Appeal
The People of the State of New York V. Donald L. McCray Nature of the Case: Appeal upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of assault on a police officer and criminal use of a firearm in the 2nd degree. Concise Rule of Law: Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41 which permits persons who appear to be mentally ill and acting in a manner that threatens safety of self or others to be taken into custody. The Penal Law § 120.08 imposes strict liability with respect to the serious injury aspect
Premium Crime Law Mental disorder
religion‚ color‚ sex or national origin (Dessler‚ 2016). This is the first law that needs to be considered when looking at hiring an employee. After this‚ employers need to make sure they are following the guidelines and example of the Griggs v. Duke Power Company case (Dessler‚ 2016). This law is to ensure that when in the hiring process‚ the requirements of the candidates applying
Premium Employment Management Human resource management
Shelby County v. Holder 570 U.S. __ (2013) was a United States Supreme Court case concerning Section 5 and Section 4 of The Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 forbids any state or district‚ that is an eligible voter discrimination area‚ from making any changes to their election process without federal permission. Section 4 labels a state or district as eligible if said state or district had a literacy test or any other unfair device in place as of November 1‚ 1964. Section 4 also clarifies how
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Elections United States
to the top ten percent of every graduating high school class in Texas. Miss Fisher sued the University of Texas because she claimed that the use of race in admissions to the college violated the Equal Protection Clause from the 14th Amendment. The case made it all the way up to the Supreme Court which came to a final verdict. The University of Texas could use race as a plus factor when considering admissions. This use of race as a plus factor promotes diversity and therefore satisfies strict scrutiny
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution