Latest 3 Cases: Wells v. Caudill (Civil Rights), United States v. Speed (Criminal Law), Quincy Bioscience, LLC v. Ellishbooks (Intellectual Property)

The Selfie Coup: How to Tell If Your Government Is Plotting to Overthrow Itself

DEAN FALVY

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, describes how to tell whether a government is plotting to overthrow itself—a phenomenon he calles a “Selfie Coup.” Falvy explains the difference between a Selfie Coup and creeping authoritarianism by providing examples of both and argues that the more aware civil society is of the possibility of a Selfie Coup, the more likely it can prepare its defenses in time to prevent it.

Read More

Wells v. Caudill

Docket: 18-2617

Opinion Date: July 22, 2020

Judge: Frank Hoover Easterbrook

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Wells was sentenced for two drug offenses: two years’ imprisonment for the first and one year for the second, to run consecutively, with credit for pretrial detention: 255 days for the first sentence and 97 days for the second. Wells calculated his term as 734 days: three years (1095 days) less 255 days less 97 days. The Department of Corrections calculated 1095 less 255, disregarding the 97-day credit because it believed that, after his arrest for the second offense (which occurred while he was on bail) Wells had been in custody on both charges simultaneously. Wells filed grievances but was held until the expiration of the 840-day term (less good-time credits). Wells filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging Eighth Amendment violations. After a trial to determine whether the prison’s records supervisor (Caudill) acted with the mental state required to violate the Eighth Amendment, the court ruled in Caudill’s favor. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, first rejecting an argument based on Wells’ pro se status. Wells did not seek legal assistance. The district judge did not make a clearly erroneous finding when concluding that Wells had not shown that Caudill acted with the necessary state of mind. The court also noted that Wells received a sentence calculation early in his term. He protested within the prison hierarchy but did not ask a state court to determine the proper release date.

United States v. Speed

Dockets: 19-2708, 19-2075, 19-2476

Opinion Date: July 22, 2020

Judge: KANNE

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Each of the three defendants in these consolidated appeals was convicted of at least one “covered offense” under the First Step Act, 132 Stat. 5194. A “covered offense” is a federal crime (committed before August 3, 2010) for which the statutory penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. They each unsuccessfully sought a sentence reduction. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. If a defendant’s aggregate sentence includes both covered and non-covered offenses, a court may reduce the sentence for the non-covered offenses and, if the Fair Sentencing Act did not alter the Guidelines range for a defendant’s covered offense, a court may still reduce the defendant’s sentence for that offense.

Quincy Bioscience, LLC v. Ellishbooks

Docket: 19-1799

Opinion Date: July 22, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Intellectual Property, Legal Ethics, Trademark

Quincy’s Prevagen® dietary supplement is sold through brick‐and‐mortar stores and online. Ellishbooks, which was not authorized to sell Prevagen® products, sold dietary supplements identified as Prevagen® on Amazon.com, including items that were in altered or damaged packaging; lacked the appropriate markings that identify the authorized retail seller; and contained Identification and security tags from retail stores. Quincy sued under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114. The court entered a $480,968.13 judgment in favor of Quincy, plus costs, and permanently enjoined Ellishbooks from infringing upon the PREVAGEN® trademark and selling stolen products bearing the PREVAGEN® trademark. The Seventh Circuit affirmed and subsequently awarded $44,329.50 in sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. Ellishbooks’s arguments “had virtually no likelihood of success” on appeal and it appeared that Ellishbooks attempted to draw out the proceedings for as long as possible.