Government

Oral Arguments, with Context

Real court arguments, crisp audio, with context. Court recordings can be difficult to follow, and many suffer from poor audio quality. This podcast enhances the audio, provides a brief introduction to each case, and explains legal concepts that may be unfamiliar to some listeners. We hope these enhancements make oral argument recordings easier to understand, more accessible, and more enjoyable to listen to. Recordings come from the courts’ own public releases; Supreme Court timing is derived locally from the Court’s official transcript and audio.

Latest Episodes:

United States v. Joseph Perkins — 7th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

We hear United States v. Joseph Perkins in the Seventh Circuit. Prosecutors described months of online exchanges with someone Perkins believed was a minor and plans for a sexual encounter. A jury convicted him, and the case has reached the court of appeals. One term to keep in mind is entrapment. That defense concerns government inducement and whether the defendant was already willing to commit the crime, independently of the government's intervention. Simply offering an ordinary opportunity to commit a crime is not enough. Here is the argument. United States v. Joseph Perkins (No. 25-2522) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.25-2522.25-2522_10_06_2026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=10%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Case background and jury conviction — U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District of Illinois: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdil/pr/pekin-man-convicted-attempted-enticement-minor Entrapment — Seventh Circuit Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions, §§ 6.04–6.05: https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/assets/pdf/Criminal_Jury_Instructions_Final.pdf Government inducement and predisposition — Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/503/540/

Dyer v. Green — 1st Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears Dyer v. Green, a dispute over employees' retirement savings at 1A Auto. The company created an employee stock ownership plan, or ESOP, which holds company shares for its workers. The plan borrowed from the company to buy preferred stock, shares carrying a promised dividend. Homer Dyer, a plan participant, alleges that the plan paid extra for that dividend but lost the benefit when dividend payments were used to reduce the company's own contributions. He says employees should have received both the contributions and the dividends, leaving more shares or cash in their retirement accounts. He sued under the federal retirement-plan law known as ERISA. The district court dismissed his suit for lack of standing: it found that he had not adequately alleged a concrete personal injury. This appeal asks whether Dyer has pleaded a real financial loss that lets the case proceed. Dyer v. Green (No. 26-1010) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — First Circuit (official recording cuts off a hesitation after arguments conclude): https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/26-1010_20260915.mp3 Argument date and case listing — First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-09 Case background and alleged losses — filed original complaint (public copy): https://www.engstromlee.com/s/Dkt-001-Complaint-4921-2608-5432-v7.pdf Standing dismissal — independent Trucker Huss case analysis: https://www.truckerhuss.com/2026/04/prohibited-transactions-post-cunningham-v-cornell-university/ Private letter rulings — IRS explanation: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-irs-guidance-a-brief-primer Meaning of ruling — 26 CFR § 301.6110-2(d): https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/301.6110-2 Precedential status — 26 USC § 6110(k)(3): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6110

Givn Goods, Inc. v. Squires — Fed. Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Givn Goods versus Squires. Givn sells bottled drinking water under the registered name GIVN, pronounced “given.” IBMG sought federal registration of that same name for cosmetics and online beauty retail services. Givn opposed those applications, saying shoppers would mistakenly assume a common source. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Patent and Trademark Office’s trademark tribunal, dismissed both oppositions. Although the names were identical and Givn’s mark was distinctive, the Board found insufficient evidence connecting the products or their sales channels. Some of Givn’s evidence was excluded, including material submitted too late in the proceedings. Givn now appeals; the Patent and Trademark Office’s director is defending the decision. Section two-d of the Trademark Act bars registration when a proposed mark is likely to cause confusion with an existing protected mark. The du Pont factors are the considerations courts weigh, including the names, relatedness of products, where they are sold, and purchasers’ care. Identical names matter greatly, but the question is whether consumers would expect a common source, not simply whether the names match. You will hear a distinction between conceptual strength—how distinctive a name is—and commercial strength—how widely shoppers recognize it. An arbitrary mark uses an ordinary word unrelated to the product; a fanciful mark is an invented word. Givn will argue that identical, strong marks and inexpensive purchases required less proof connecting water and cosmetics, and that the Board applied the wrong legal standard. Giulio Yaquinto will represent the director, maintaining that the Board used the correct test and Givn failed to supply enough evidence. Legal questions receive fresh review, called de novo; factual findings receive substantial-evidence review, which asks whether a reasonable mind could accept the supporting evidence. Givn Goods, Inc. v. Squires (No. 25-1681) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit court original: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1681_10072026.mp3 Argument date and recording — Federal Circuit official table: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case background and prior ruling — TTAB consolidated decision, February 18, 2025: https://ttab-reading-room.uspto.gov/cms/rest/legal-proceeding/91281530/decision/OPP_12.pdf Original dispute — Givn notice of opposition: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91281529-OPP-1.pdf Path to appeal — Givn notice of appeal filed with TTAB: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91281529-OPP-29.pdf Official originating docket — TTABVUE: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91281529&pty=OPP Director intervention and counsel — public rendering of Federal Circuit clerk entries, last refreshed October 2025: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1681 Trademark confusion statute — 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), official 2024 Code edition: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title15/html/USCODE-2024-title15-chap22-subchapI-sec1052.htm Confusion and sales-channel explanation — USPTO TMEP §1207.01: https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/print?href=TMEP-1200d1e5044.html&version=current Arbitrary and fanciful marks — USPTO TMEP §1209.01(a): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/print?href=TMEP-1200d1e6993.html&version=current Appeal review standards — Federal Circuit, In re Detroit Athletic Co., page 3: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/17-2361.opinion.9-10-2018.pdf

Brightex Bio-Photonics, LLC v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Brightex Bio-Photonics versus L’Oréal USA. Brightex sued L’Oréal over a patent on computerized skin-treatment recommendations. The claimed method guides a user in photographing their face, measures skin features, compares them with population data, and recommends treatment for the most severe features. A California federal court dismissed the infringement claim at the pleading stage, before trial, finding the asserted patent claims ineligible for protection. Brightex is appealing that dismissal. Section 101 sets out the kinds of inventions eligible for patents, but courts exclude abstract ideas. Under the Supreme Court’s Alice test, courts ask whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether its additional elements, alone or combined, supply an inventive concept rather than just implementing that idea on a computer. Brightex will argue that its photo guide and measurement process provide a specific technical improvement, and that disputed facts made dismissal premature. Ramsey Al-Salam will represent L’Oréal, which maintains that the patent merely automates conventional skin assessment using generic technology. Brightex Bio-Photonics, LLC v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (No. 25-1835) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit court original: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1835_10072026.mp3 Argument date and recording — Federal Circuit official table: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case background and prior ruling — N.D. California, March 6, 2025 dismissal order, public PDF copy: https://business.cch.com/ipld/BrightexBioPhotonicsLOreal20250306.pdf Path to appeal — May 7, 2025 partial-judgment order, official USPTO-hosted exhibit: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1557858/download-documents?artifactId=yLsOBjVEdfwat2PpYkIbJPM4sANuLdoaBDQKn_M9JZ0gBUF81xl_fQU Appeal identity — Federal Circuit clerk notice, official USPTO-hosted exhibit: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1557858/download-documents?artifactId=RklsWFVzP6evF_SQa1Ds2mLxCmgpEpk-8DO4fQz3kpiCS5hFRJuT3oQ Skin-analysis method — official U.S. Patent 9,842,358: https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/9842358 Patent eligibility statute — 35 U.S.C. §101, official 2024 Code edition: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/html/USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap10-sec101.htm Alice eligibility test — Supreme Court, 573 U.S. 208: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-573/pdf/USREPORTS-573-208.pdf Eligibility explanation — USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, §2106: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html Counsel appearances — public copy of Federal Circuit clerk entries: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1835 Ramsey Al-Salam — current law-firm profile: https://www.ashurstperkinscoie.com/en/people/ramsey-al-salam/

Noble Innovations NC LLC v. Colgate-Palmolive Company — Fed. Cir. (Oct 8, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Noble Innovations versus Colgate-Palmolive. Noble holds a patent for a toothbrush with a recessed pocket for a toothpaste capsule and angled elements to hold it in place. Colgate challenged the patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board found the challenged patent claims obvious in light of older toothbrush designs, and Noble appealed. A patent claim sets out the features for which protection is sought; here, prior art means the earlier designs used to challenge those claims. Noble says straight cleaning bristles and angled capsule retainers are different features that those earlier designs do not supply together. Colgate says the Board properly interpreted the claims and had sufficient evidence for its findings. Joseph Zito will represent Noble. Noble Innovations NC LLC v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (No. 25-1488) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 8, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit court original: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1488_10082026.mp3 Argument date and recording — Federal Circuit official table: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case background and prior ruling — Patent Trial and Appeal Board, IPR2023-01254 final written decision: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554430/download-documents?artifactId=XAtL0mDwEEIR3FliHCPaoNdUJMO3R0nEuQAOJ0AcHW0W__Pk2YhKf6A Toothbrush and capsule design — official U.S. Patent8,881,332: https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/8881332 Appeal and counsel — public copy of Federal Circuit clerk entries: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1488 Patent claim interpretation — USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Procedure: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html Joseph Zito — current law-firm profile: https://dnlzito.com/joe-zito

Drake v. Collins — Fed. Cir. (Oct 8, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Richard Drake's challenge to the denial of veterans' disability benefits. He attributes his bladder problems to catheterization during military service in nineteen sixty-six. The Board of Veterans' Appeals denied his claim, and the Veterans Court upheld that decision. Drake disputes how the VA developed medical evidence in his case. Section fifty-one oh-three A requires reasonable efforts to help claimants substantiate their claims, including a medical examination or opinion when needed to decide a disability-compensation claim. The Federal Circuit generally reviews legal questions in these appeals, not case-specific factual judgments. You will hear forfeiture: an argument may be lost if it was not raised in time. Adam Steinmetz will represent Drake. Drake v. Collins (No. 25-1524) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 8, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit court original: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1524_10082026.mp3 Argument date and recording — Federal Circuit official table: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case background and prior ruling — Veterans Court memorandum decision, December 6, 2024: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012010997103 Prior proceedings and appellate case link — Veterans Court official docket, No. 23-770: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=23-770&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y Appeal and counsel — public copy of Federal Circuit clerk entries: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1524 Duty to assist — 38 U.S.C. § 5103A: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/5103A Scope of appellate review — 38 U.S.C. § 7292: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/7292 Procedural forfeiture — Supreme Court Olano majority, court-opinion copy: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/507/725/ Adam Steinmetz — current law-firm profile: https://www.desmaraisllp.com/adam-steinmetz

United States of America v. Salaman (Seguinot) — 2d Cir. (Oct 8, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit considers whether Jesus Seguinot should be released while appealing his federal drug conviction. A Connecticut jury convicted him of conspiring to distribute fentanyl in twenty twenty-four. At trial, a hospitalized witness testified against him by video. Seguinot says that violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. The trial judge denied bail, citing concerns about Seguinot's Facebook posts. This hearing concerns release during the appeal, not a final ruling on the conviction. Federal law requires clear and convincing evidence that he is unlikely to flee or endanger others. His appeal must raise a substantial question that, if decided in his favor, would warrant reversal or a new trial; exceptional reasons must also justify release from otherwise mandatory detention. United States of America v. Salaman (Seguinot) (No. 25-1879) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 8, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit court original; this episode retains only the complete Seguinot bail hearing: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1879,%2026-713%20mtn.mp3 Argument date and recording — Second Circuit official table: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Pre-argument background and bail ruling — District of Connecticut, July 13, 2026: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2022cr0076-745= Trial background — U.S. Attorney's Office, December 20, 2024: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/two-new-haven-men-found-guilty-fentanyl-trafficking-offenses Appeal and counsel — public copy of Second Circuit clerk entries: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-1879 Release pending appeal — 18 U.S.C. § 3143: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3143 Exceptional reasons for release — 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3145 Confrontation right — Sixth Amendment constitutional text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment

Repeat Precision, LLC v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH — Fed. Cir. (Oct 8, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Repeat Precision versus DynaEnergetics, a patent dispute over disposable tools used to set plugs in oil and gas wells. Repeat sued, alleging that DynaEnergetics' MicroSet tool infringed a setting-tool patent. A Texas federal jury found no infringement in twenty twenty-three. Repeat is appealing that result. Patent claims define the invention's protected scope; claim construction is the judge's interpretation of those terms. Here, the dispute centers on a patent requirement involving attachment to a firing head. You will hear J M O L, meaning judgment as a matter of law: a ruling that a reasonable jury lacks a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for its decision. Dicta are judicial comments unnecessary to deciding an issue, rather than binding holdings. Repeat Precision, LLC v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH (No. 25-1742) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 8, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit court original: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1742_10082026.mp3 Argument date and recording — Federal Circuit official table: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Appeal and counsel — public copy of Federal Circuit clerk entries: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1742 Patent — U.S. Patent 9,810,035 B1, official USPTO record: https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/9810035 Trial and product background — DynaEnergetics company release, April 5, 2023: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2023/04/05/2642145/0/en/dynaenergetics-successfully-defends-itself-in-patent-infringement-case.html Trial background — Womble Bond Dickinson trial-counsel report: https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/us/insights/news/102nbry/womble-secures-third-favorable-verdict-for-dynaenergetics-in-texas-courts Judgment as a matter of law — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50 Claim construction — Supreme Court Markman majority, Cornell court-opinion copy: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-26.ZO.html Dicta — Cornell legal definition: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dicta Dicta and precedent — Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 2006 majority: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-885.ZO.html Preston Heard — current Womble Bond Dickinson profile: https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/us/people/preston-h-heard

Applied Predictive Technologies v. MarketDial — Fed. Cir. (Oct 8, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Applied Predictive Technologies versus MarketDial, a dispute over legal fees between rival business-analytics companies. APT licenses Test and Learn, software for testing business initiatives. A former McKinsey consultant had obtained its confidential materials. APT sued MarketDial in twenty eighteen, alleging misuse of trade secrets. After years of discovery, the Utah district court ruled that APT had not adequately identified a legally protected trade secret. A prior appeal upheld that result. This argument concerns a separate order requiring APT to pay the defendants' legal fees. The judge found that APT had pursued the claims in bad faith to harm a competitor. APT disputes that finding. The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and Utah's Uniform Trade Secrets Act permit fees for bad-faith claims. Under the test used here, an objectively specious claim looks plausible but lacks supporting evidence; subjective misconduct concerns an improper litigation motive. Losing alone is not enough. Counsel for APT will argue that continuing to investigate confidential files was reasonable, not bad faith. Applied Predictive Technologies v. MarketDial (No. 25-1713) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 8, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit court original; all advocacy is complete; the official file truncates only the judge's final administrative closing-word tail: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1713_10082026.mp3 Argument date and recording — Federal Circuit official table: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Appealed attorneys' fee order — District of Utah, March 25, 2025; public court-document copy: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2%3A2019cv00496/115695/708/0.pdf Underlying case background — District of Utah amended summary-judgment order, August 12, 2024: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-utd-2_19-cv-00496/pdf/USCOURTS-utd-2_19-cv-00496-8.pdf Prior merits appeal, not this fee appeal — Federal Circuit No. 24-1751, January 28, 2026: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01751/pdf/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01751-0.pdf Federal fee provision — 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D), official 2024 U.S. Code: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/pdf/USCODE-2024-title18-partI-chap90-sec1836.pdf Utah fee provision — Utah Code § 13-24-5, public 2025 statute copy: https://law.justia.com/codes/utah/title-13/chapter-24/section-5/ Test and Learn — Mastercard product description: https://www.mastercard.com/global/en/business/insights-intelligence/advanced-analytics/solutions/test-learn.html MarketDial — company product background: https://marketdial.com/about-us/ Keith Call — Spencer Fane biography: https://www.spencerfane.com/professionals/keith-call/ Third-party beneficiary — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/third-party_beneficiary

United States v. Ellington — 2d Cir. (Oct 8, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Curtis Ellington's appeal of a twenty-five-year prison sentence. The prosecution concerned enticing a minor into illegal sexual activity in Orange County, New York. Because he was required to register as a sex offender, he also faced an additional federal penalty. The enticement offense carried a ten-year minimum; the registration-related offense added ten years, to be served consecutively. That made twenty years the minimum combined prison term. The district court imposed twenty-five. The discussion turns on the parsimony clause: federal law requires a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to serve the purposes of sentencing. Procedural review examines how the judge reached and explained the sentence. Substantive review examines whether the punishment falls within the permissible range of sentencing decisions. Both involve deference to the sentencing judge, not simply choosing the prison term the appeals court would prefer. United States v. Ellington (No. 25-2298) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 8, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit court original, Ellington portion of a consecutive-case recording: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2298.mp3 Argument date and recording — Second Circuit listing: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Appeal and counsel — public clerk-entry reproduction, last retrieved March 3, 2026: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2298 Original charges — public indictment supplied by the U.S. Attorney: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/file/1296651/dl?inline= Original complaint and prosecutor identification — publicly released court document: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/file/1296656/dl?inline= Prior sentencing and case background — U.S. Attorney report, September 10, 2025: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/registered-sex-offender-sentenced-25-years-prison-enticement-minor Enticement penalty — 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/html/USCODE-2024-title18-partI-chap117-sec2422.htm Additional consecutive penalty — 18 U.S.C. § 2260A: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/html/USCODE-2024-title18-partI-chap110-sec2260A.htm Sentencing factors and parsimony — 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/html/USCODE-2024-title18-partII-chap227-subchapA-sec3553.htm Sentencing review — Gall majority opinion, pages 49–52: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-552/pdf/USREPORTS-552-38.pdf Second Circuit sentencing standard — Cavera en banc majority, pages 9–18: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/05-4591-cr_opn2.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected