• CIVIL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Yvonne g. Trout and clara a. Perligiero v. Secretary of the navy and commanding officer naval command systems support

Whether the interest provision of the Civil Rights Act, 1991 has retrospective application?

In the present dispute between the parties over liability and damages for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the district court denied a motion of Appellants seeking pre-November 21, 1991, interest on backpay and attorneys' fees awarded to them for being subject to sex discrimination in employment during the 1970's. Whether the interest provision of the Civil Rights Act, 1991 has retrospective application? Held, Supreme Court in Republic of Austria v. Altmann has held that the interest provision in Civil Rights Act is an "intervening change in law" that entitles one to interest on backpay and attorneys' fees that accrued before the change in law.

Tyrone Hurt v. Social Security Administration

Abuse of privilege of proceeding before Court without payment of required fees

In this case, Court revoked the privilege of Appellant, a prisoner, for instituting suits on ground that Appellant instituted various frivolous suits without proper payment of required fees. Court held, The United States Code allows federal courts to "authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees," but also requires them to dismiss "frivolous or malicious" cases and cases seeking monetary relief from defendants immune therefrom. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a), (e)(2).

• CRIMINAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

United States of America v. Byron Keith Thomas

Retrospective Application of Amendment to Guidelines

Appellant appeals the district court's judgment denying his motion for reduction of sentence. Said motion was based on the retroactively applicable amendment to the crack cocaine guidelines wherein Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines together with Amendment 713, retroactively reduced the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses as per the ruling in United States v. Moore. Held, The reduction of base offense levels in relation to crack cocaine quantities under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) has no effect on Appellant's sentencing range as was the case in United States V. Moore. Appellant would have been subject to exactly the same guidelines range if the provisions of Amendment 706 had been in effect at the time he was originally sentenced because his sentence was based on the guideline range applicable to armed career criminals under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. Therefore decision of lower court affirmed.