USA v. Yu Xue

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Docket: 21-2227

Opinion Date: August 2, 2022

Judge: Michael A. Chagares

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, White Collar Crime

Defendant, a former scientist employed by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), pled guilty to a single count of conspiracy to steal trade
secrets, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1832(a)(5) based on allegations he stole company documents. At sentencing, the government sought a sentencing enhancement based on the “loss” attributable to Defendant's conduct. However, the district court denied the government's request for an enhancement.

On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed. The court noted that finding that under the commentary to U.S.S.G. 2B1.1, the definition of “loss” includes losses that the defendants intended. However, here, it was uncontested that GSK did not suffer any actual loss. Further, the court determined that the government failed to prove that Defendant purposely sought to inflict pecuniary harm on GSK.

Roberts v. LeJeune

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 18-1092

Opinion Date: August 4, 2022

Judge: Diane Pamela Wood

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, White Collar Crime

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging his money-laundering convictions, holding that Petitioner did not face the kind of "fundamental miscarriage of justice" that must exist to justify relief under section 2241.

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of violations of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. 2421-24, the money-laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. 1956, and associated conspiracies and sentenced to a 432-month term of imprisonment. Petitioner later filed his habeas petition arguing that he was convicted on the money-laundering counts for conduct that was not a crime. The district court denied relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that he faced a "fundamental miscarriage of justice" necessary to justify relief under section 2241.

What the Divided Argument in the SCOTUS Affirmative Action Cases Could Mean

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the possible significance of the Supreme Court’s decision to divide, rather than consolidate, argument in the affirmative action cases it will be deciding next term. Professor Dorf suggests the decision would allow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to participate in one of the cases and could also allow the Court to attend to at least two important factual and legal differences between the two cases.

Read More

4 Content Creation Ideas for Your Law Firm’s Video Marketing Plan

Marina Wilson

Looking to add video marketing on your law firm’s social media but not sure where to start on your content strategy? Here are four suggestions to help you get going.

Read More