Latest 2 Cases: United States v. Harris (Criminal Law), United States v. Luscombe (Criminal Law)

The Clients’ Waiver of Their Rights Under Regulation BI of the Securities and Exchange Commission

TAMAR FRANKEL

BU Law emerita professor Tamar Frankel discusses the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s Regulation Best Interest (BI), which imposes on broker-dealers a commitment to act in the best interests of their clients. Specifically, Frankel addresses the SEC’s treatment of client waivers of the Regulation BI, which goes even further than general fiduciary law to prohibit any waiver of the broker-dealer’s conflicting interests.

Read More

United States v. Harris

Docket: 18-1174

Opinion Date: February 21, 2020

Judge: Melloy

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine. The court held that the district court erred in finding that defendant's prior Arkansas conviction for terroristic threatening was a crime of violence under USSG 4B1.1(a). In this case, the available materials suggest that the "injury to persons" and "injury to property" components of the Class B felony's mens rea requirement are different means of satisfying a single mens rea element and not alternative elements defining different crimes. Therefore, the court concluded that the categorical approach's "demand for certainty" has not been met. However, the court held that the district court did not err in finding defendant's conviction for second degree battery qualified as a crime of violence under section 4B1.1(a). Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing.

United States v. Luscombe

Docket: 18-3355

Opinion Date: February 21, 2020

Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for three counts of wire fraud, two counts of mail fraud, and one count of money laundering. The court held that the district court did not err in failing to sua sponte revoke defendant's right to self-representation on the first day of trial or to hold a competency hearing, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a new trial on that basis. The court also held that the district court did not err by terminating defendant's self-representation during the third day of trial and in directing standby counsel to take over his defense. In this case, the totality of defendant's behavior supported the district court's decision to terminate defendant's self-representation. Finally, the court held that the district court adequately explained the basis for the upward variance in light of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant.