Notice & Comment

D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed: “Appointed by the Court” Part II

There were just two opinions this week, and neither is especially relevant to administrative law.* Even so, I noticed something interesting. In United States v. Alvaran-Velez, the opinion notes that Carmen D. Hernandez was appointed to argue on behalf of the appellant. And Reid v. Hurwitz was argued by Caleb P. Redmond, a law student. That reminded me that it has been a while since I have recognized the lawyers who have served as appointed counsel. So I had my talented research assistant identify appointed counsel since December 2016.

Here is what she found.

Appointed by Court (or helped someone who was):

Aguiar v. DEA: Marsha Godina Hansford, Kannon K. Shanmugam

Bank of New York Mellon v. Henderson: Paul F. Enzinna

Bartko v. DOJ: Sophia M. Brill, Brian M. Matsui, Deanne E. Maynard

Bartko v. SEC: Brian R. Matsui, Bryan J. Leitch, Deanne E. Maynard

Blount v. United States: David M. Lehn, Seth P. Waxman, Arpit K. Garg

Bowman v. Iddon: Jennifer J. Clark, Jeffrey T. Green

Chichakli v. Tillerson: Kendall Turner, David W. DeBruin

Croley v. Joint Committee on Judicial Administration: Adele M. El-Khouri, Chad Golder

Day v. Trump: Ryan J. Watson, Noel J. Francisco

Durant v. D.C. Government: Anthony F. Shelley, Michael J. Satin, Amelia D. Hairston-Porter

Ford v. Massarone: Zachary C. Schauf, David W. DeBruin

Fourstar v. Garden City Group: Jonathan D. Kossak, Anthony F. Shelley, Dawn E. Murphy-Johnson

Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran: Erica J. Hashimoto

Hill v. Associates for Renewal in Education: Yongo Ding, Anthony F. Shelley

Ivy v. Commissioner of IRS: Travis Crum

Jackson v. Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia: Sarah G. Boyce, Chad I. Golder

Johnson v. Interstate Management Company: Ruthanne M. Deutsch, Steven H. Goldblatt

Kahl v. Bureau of National Affairs: Gregory J. Dubinsky, Michael J. Gottlieb

Kaplan v. Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran: Anthony F. Shelley, Ian A. Herbert, Adam W. Braskich

Kaufman v. Nielsen: Amit R. Vora, Steven H. Goldblatt

Ladeairous v. Sessions: Dawn E. Murphy-Johnson, Anthony F. Shelley

Niskey v. Kelly: Thomas Burch

Palmieri v. United States: Thomas Burch

Price v. DOJ: Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood

Redmond v. Fulwood: David C. Wolff, Kathryn L. Clune

Reid v. Inch: Erica Hashimoto

Sluss v. DOJ: Erica Hashimoto

United States v. Aguiar: Erica J. Hashimoto, Steven H. Goldblatt, Amit R. Vora

United States v. Alvaran-Velez: Carmen D. Hernandez

United States v. Borda: Carmen D. Hernandez

United States v. Brown: Barbara E. Kittay

United States v. Brown: Christine Pembroke, Mary E. Davis, Pleasant S. Brodnax III, Barbara E. Kittay, Jonathan Zucker

United States v. Cooper: Jonathan Zucker

United States v. Davis: Adam H. Kurland

United States v. Durrette: Thomas G. Corcoran Jr., Edward C. Sussman, A.J. Kramer

United States v. Eshetu: Carmen D. Hernandez, Mary E. Davis, Christopher M. Davis, Anthony D. Martin

United States v. Flores: Richard K. Gilbert, Kristen G. Hughes

United States v. Fry: Michael Alan Olshonsky

United States v. Galaviz: Kira Anne West

United States v. Glover: Nicholas G. Madiou, Larry Allen Nathans, Michael Edward Lawlor

United States v. Hicks: Paul S. Rosenzweig

United States v. Hunt: Edward C. Sussman

United States v. Laureys: S. Rebecca Brodey, L. Barrett Boss

United States v. Machado-Erazo: Kira Anne West, Christine Pembroke, Marc Eisenstein, Thomas G. Corcoran Jr., Barry Coburn

United States v. Mattea: Mary E. Davis, Thomas Abbenante

United States v. Meadows: Charles B. Wayne, Jerald R. Hess

United States v. Miller: Dennis M. Hart

United States v. Mosquera-Murrillo: Julia Fong Sheketoff, Louis K. Fisher, Sparkle L. Sooknanan, Richard K. Gilbert, Carmen D. Hernandez, A.J. Kramer

United States v. Murray: Gregory Stuart Smith

United States v. O’Neal: Benjamin Beaton, Paul J. Zidlicky

United States v. Powers: Robert S. Becker

United States v. Pyles: John A. Briley Jr.

United States v. Sitzmann: Paul L. Knight

United States v. Slatten: Brian M. Heberlig, William F. Coffield, Danny C. Onorato, Timothy J. Simeone, Thomas G. Connolly, Steven A. Fredley, Jared P. Marx, Michael J. Baratz, Bruce C. Bishop, Linda C. Bailey, David Schertler, Lisa Hertzer Schertler, Janet Foster, Laina C. Lopez

United States v. Stoddard: James M. Wilcox, William H. Burgess, William L. Welch III, Edward C. Sussman

United States v. Williamson: Richard K. Gilbert

West v. Lynch: David M. Zionts, Robert A. Long, Jr.

Wilson v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission: Erica J. Hashimoto

Student Counsel:

Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran: Harry Phillips, Joseph Flanagan, Vetone Ivezaj

Johnson v. Interstate Management Company: Katherine Connolly, Lauren Ige, David Kanter

Kaufman v. Nielsen: Stephen S. Dalal, Cole. H. Mayhew, Damon R. Porter

Niskey v. Kelly: Aaron Parks, Rachel Zisek

Palmieri v. United States: Ryan Giles, Holly Boggs, Aidan Moss

Price v. DOJ: Benjamin G. Brokh, Jeffrey C. Thalhofer

Reid v. Inch: Caleb Redmond, Erica Hashimoto, Paola Pinta, Sean Stein

Sluss v. DOJ: Dominique Rioux, Benjamin Kurland

United States v. Aguiar: Caleb Redmond, Joseph Flanagan

Wilson v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission: Luke Sullivan, Donna M. Farg

Many thanks to all of these lawyers — and future lawyers — for their service.

* Reid v. Hurwitz is about the Federal Bureau of Prisons; I suppose that makes it an “admin law” case … sorta. Here, Judge Wilkins, joined by Judge Griffith, addressed a prisoner complaint; the prisoner alleged, among other things, that the Bureau violated various regulations by failing to deliver magazines when he was housed — “sometimes for disciplinary reasons, and other times for administrative ones” — in a Special Housing Unit. The district court concluded that the complaint was moot because he wasn’t so housed anymore. The majority, however, concluded his claims were not moot because of the exception to mootness for claims capable of repetition yet evading review. “Having been placed in a SHU in myriad different BOP institutions, subject each time to a restriction allegedly imposed under a purported BOP policy or practice contravening BOP regulations, Reid has proffered a logical theory that the challenged actions reasonably will recur despite his current transfer out of the SHU.” Judge Katsas dissented because he was not persuaded that there was an actual BOP policy that would apply. In United States v. Alvaran-Velez, Judge Pillard (joined by Judges Henderson and Edwards) rejected a sentence reduction because the Sentencing Commission policy at issue never applied to his case, thus negating the relevance of the Ex Post Facto Clause. This case is worth a read if you practice criminal law.

D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed is designed to help you keep track of the nation’s “second most important court” in just five minutes a week.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email