Sapoundjiev, Vassil v. Ashcroft, John (Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals)
USA v. Henderson, Michael (ED Wis.)
Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
BAUER, Circuit Judge. * * * On February 18, 2003, the district court entered an order finding that bank larceny is not a qualifying offense under the DNA Act and enjoined the United States Probation Office from taking Henderson’s DNA sample. The government now appeals this order. We reverse the district court’s order. * * *The question is whether bank larceny as set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2113(b) is a qualifying offense requiring collection of Henderson’s DNA under the DNA Act. We employ a de novo standard when reviewing questions of statutory construction and interpretation. * * *
The Attorney General at 28 C.F.R. § 28.2 states that “any offense under section . . . 2113 of Title 18” constitutes a “qualifying offense.” Given that larceny falls under one of the enumerated code sections, Title 18 U.S.C. § 2113,
Section 28.2 of the regulations does not contradict, but rather is consistent with, the legislative intent of Congress in the DNA Act.Also, the Attorney General’s construction is reasonable because it comports with the legislative history. * * * The Attorney General’s regulation is not manifestly contrary to the statute and deserves controlling weight. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s order enjoining the United States Probation Office from collecting Henderson’s DNA. REVERSED.
Advance Cast Stone v. Local Union 1 (ND Ill.) Court affirms district court judgment vacating an arbitration award in favor of Union.
Miljkovic, Dragan v. Ashcroft, John (On Petition for Review of an Orderof the Board of Immigration Appeals)
Witzke, Michael v. Femal, Michelle (ED Minn.)
Before POSNER, RIPPLE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.Posted by Marcia Oddi at July 22, 2004 02:02 PM
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Michael Witzke, a prisoner serving a sentence imposed by a Wisconsin state court, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants had been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. The defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Witzke’s complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The district court granted the motion. For the reasons set forth in the following opinion, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.