United States

Summary: <p> Before the Court is the appeal of Frank J. Abbate, Jr.from a misdemeanor conviction for violating a provision of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA") after a Louisiana Department of Fisheries and Wildlife agent witnessed Abbate illegally taking or attempting to take wood ducks after legal shooting hours. At trial, appellant was found guilty of the offense charged and sentenced him to a two-year term of probation. As a special condition, the magistrate ordered that appellant pay a fine of $500 and refrain from hunting birds during the probationary period. Appellant petitions this Court to review his portrayal of the facts and reconsider the credibility of the witnesses and evidence in light of the arguments and allegations presented in his appellate brief. However, rules of procedure governing this appeal preclude appellant from receiving a trial de novo. Accordingly, this Court cannot consider new facts which appellant did not allege at trial&nbsp;and disregarded appellant's arguments which raise conflict over the weight and credibility of testimony.&nbsp;With regard to sentencing, the court found that the magistrate properly exercised his discretion where appellant had a prior conviction under the MBTA for illegal hunting and the revocation of his hunting license would properly prevent future MBTA violations. </p>

Summary: <p> This matter comes before the court on a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment filed by the defendant. The defendant, Ed Winddancer, was indicted on six counts relating to possessing and bartering eagle feathers and feathers plucked from other migratory birds. Winddancer did not have standing to challenge the manner in which the MBTA has been administered against him, because applying for a permit under the MBTA would not have been clearly futile. With regard to the BGEPA, the court found that defendant showed&nbsp;that the BGEPA substantially burdens his ability to possess eagle feathers. However, the court found that&nbsp;he did not show that his desire to possess the feathers arises from a sincere religious belief. Further, the court found that the government indeed has a compelling interest in protecting the bald and golden eagle, especially since there is no reasonable forensic method by which law enforcement can determine if a bird was accidentally or intentionally killed, killed a hundred years ago, or killed yesterday. </p>

Summary: <p> Alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), plaintiffs sought to compel defendants to publish in the Federal Register proposed and final rules to remove the Washington, Oregon and California population of the marbled murrelet (a coastal bird) from the list of threatened species. Plaintiffs alleged that after defendants completed a five year review of the murrelet,&nbsp;defendants violated the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to publish proposed and final rules "delisting" the murrelet. However, the court found that under the subsection upon which plaintiffs rely, the Secretary need publish a proposed regulation only after receiving a petition to add or remove species from the lists of threatened and endangered species and making certain findings. Because plaintiffs have not alleged or demonstrated that they filed a petition, they cannot establish that the Secretary has a duty&nbsp;to publish a proposed regulation. Thus, defendant's motion to dismiss was granted. </p>

Summary: <p> An Arkansas&nbsp;woman who raises gamefowl brought an action challenging the constitutionality of the Animal Welfare Act which&nbsp;prohibits the interstate transportation of birds for the purposes of fighting.&nbsp; The trial court dismissed the woman's claim and the Court of Appeals affirmed holding the statute is not vague. </p>

Summary: <p> A man was charged and convicted for violating the Lacey Act after illegally selling a tiger and grizzly bear.&nbsp; The trial court admitted the man's conversation into evidence in which he implicated himself in the illegal sale of a grizzly bear.&nbsp; The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court holding the man's&nbsp;conversation was not protected by the Sixth Amendment because it was made before there were specific charges against him for the illegal sale of the grizzly bear. </p>

Summary: <p> An environmental group brought an action against the U.S. Army Corps Engineers and BP&nbsp;for violating both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.&nbsp; Defendants counter-claimed that the environmental group lacked standing&nbsp; and that the claim was barred by laches.&nbsp; The&nbsp;Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of&nbsp;defendants' motion for summary judgment, reversed&nbsp;summary judgment against the environmental group, and remanded the case for consideration of the environmental group's request for injunctive relief.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>

Summary: <p> A homeless man was mistaken for the driver of a crashed car while sleeping in a public park and was bitten by a police dog.&nbsp; The homeless man brought claims under Section 1983 claiming his&nbsp;Fourth Amendment rights had been violated.&nbsp; The trial court granted summary judgment in favor&nbsp;of the police department and city, but the Court of Appeals remanded the issue of excessive force. <strong> Rehearing en Banc Granted in Part, </strong> <strong> Opinion Vacated in Part by <a href="/cases/causfd437f3d1289.htm"> <em> Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, MN </em> , 429 F.3d 1289 (8th Cir., 2006). </a> </strong> </p>

Summary: <p> &nbsp; </p> <p> Several public interest groups brought actions challenging Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to transfer Clean Water Act (CWA) pollution permitting program for Arizona to that State.&nbsp; Under federal law, a state may take over the Clean Water Act pollution permitting program in its state from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if it applies to do so and meets the applicable standards.&nbsp; When deciding whether to transfer permitting authority, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued, and the EPA relied on, a Biological Opinion premised on the proposition that the EPA lacked the authority to take into account the impact of that decision on endangered species and their habitat.&nbsp; The plaintiffs in this case challenge the EPA's transfer decision, particularly its reliance on the Biological Opinion's proposition regarding the EPA's limited authority.&nbsp; The court held that&nbsp;the EPA did have the authority to consider jeopardy to listed species in making the transfer decision, and erred in determining otherwise. For that reason among others, the EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court granted&nbsp;the petition and remanded to the EPA. </p>

Summary: <p> A jury convicted William Kapp for multiple violations of the Endangered Species Act and the Lacey Act connected with the killing of, and trafficking in, endangered tigers and leopards and their meat, hides, and other parts. On appeal, Kapp claims he is entitled to a new trial because the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict and the district court erroneously admitted certain evidence. Kapp also argues that the manner in which he was sentenced violated the Sixth Amendment. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on all counts, and the district court did not err in its evidentiary ruling.&nbsp; His conviction was, therefore, affirmed, but a limited remand was ordered to determine whether Kapp should be resentenced . </p>

Summary: <span> <span> A livestock owner and drover sued the Wyoming state brand inspector, alleging that inspector violated his state and federal constitutional rights in making warrantless seizure of five head of livestock, and that inspector abused his office in violation of state constitution. </span> Plaintiff Rudy Stanko, proceeding pro se, appealed from the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendant Jim Maher.&nbsp; The appellate court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of Mr. Maher, holding that the warrantless search of cattle did not violate Fourth Amendment and the&nbsp;inspector did not violate the Fourth Amendment by making warrantless seizure of cattle as estrays.&nbsp; Further, the procedure provided under Wyoming brand inspection statutes prior to seizure of cattle deemed to be estrays satisfied due process requirements. </span>