Seventh Circuit Weighs in on Aggravated Identity Theft Sentencing

The aggravated identity theft statute (18 U.S.C. §1028A) specifies a sentence of two years — no more, no less — for each violation.  So, when a defendant is convicted of multiple violations of the statute, should the two-year sentences be imposed concurrently or consecutively?  Today, in United States v. Dooley (No. 11-2256), the Seventh Circuit recognized that the sentencing judge has discretion in making the decision, but held that the judge must consider the factors set forth in U.S.S.G. §5G1.2 Application Note 2(B).

Dooley was convicted in three separate counts of violating §1028A, leaving the judge to choose among three sentencing options: 24 months, 48 months, or 72 months.  (I leave out the effect of Dooley’s conviction of various other offenses, which did not play a significant role in the Seventh Circuit’s analysis.)  In selecting the 72-month option, the judge focused on the need to avoid disparities relative to another defendant.  However, the judge did not mention the Note 2(B) factors.  This, the Seventh Circuit held, was plain error.  

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Weighs in on Aggravated Identity Theft Sentencing

Here’s My Invite, so Friend Me, Maybe? Changing Notions of Privacy in Social Media

I first want to take a moment to thank the Marquette Law School Blog editorial faculty for inviting me to be the alumni blogger this month. I have enjoyed the content the MULS blog has offered since its inception, and I am honored to now be a part of it.

I primarily practice in management-side, labor and employment law in Wisconsin, but I have a special interest in how social media interacts with these practice areas. My posts will focus on various ways that social media collides with the law in this respect and others.

As a side note, I not only observe social media but I am a user, too. You can follow me on Twitter @jesse_dill. I typically Tweet about developments dealing with labor and employment law, Milwaukee, and the occasional grumblings about how my favorite teams are not meeting my perfectly reasonable (read: exceedingly high) expectations.

Social media services like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, FourSquare, Instagram, and the like have quickly become the hot topic in my line of work because of their widespread use among employers and employees. Whether an employer wants to utilize a service for recruiting purposes or try to regulate its use by employees in the workplace, a host of fascinating issues arise while attempting to apply old legal theories to these new devices.

Continue ReadingHere’s My Invite, so Friend Me, Maybe? Changing Notions of Privacy in Social Media

What Katie Holmes’ Split from Tom Cruise Can Teach Us

On June 28, actress Katie Holmes allegedly “blindsided” actor Tom Cruise, her husband of five-and-a-half years, by filing for divorce.  Cruise was filming a new movie in Iceland when Holmes filed her divorce papers in New York, where she and their daughter Suri had been living. 

What made this story even more dramatic was the incredibly calculated way in which Holmes is rumored to have plotted her departure and her filing.  Most media (gossip) reports claim that weeks (if not months) prior to June 28, Holmes set the wheels in motion, using pay-as-you-go cell phones to contact attorneys, cutting off ties with joint friends, firing staff that Cruise had hired, and renting a new apartment in New York City in her name only, allegedly telling Cruise that the new apartment had certain features that allowed for more privacy, even as she allegedly was professing her love for Cruise during phone calls with him.  (Stories can be found here, here, here, here, and here, undoubtedly among many other places.)

Why Holmes chose New York rather than California as the venue for her filing could be due to one, or both, of two possible reasons, as speculated by a number of legal sources, none of whom are connected with the Holmes-Cruise case.  First, filings in California are public, while filings in New York are sealed (and Holmes purportedly petitioned for an anonymous caption).  This would allow the couple privacy as they worked through the unraveling of their marriage. Second, it was widely speculated that custody of Holmes’ and Cruise’s daughter would be an issue.  Holmes requested sole legal custody, a move many thought occurred because Holmes (raised a Catholic) wanted to remove the influence of Scientology (Cruise’s professed religion) from Suri’s life, and a New York court is more likely than a California court to grant sole custody where parents cannot agree on child rearing issues.     

Holmes and Cruise settled their divorce in 11 days and though little has been officially released about the terms, most reports agree that Holmes with have primary custody of Suri in New York and Cruise will have liberal visitation rights.  Thereafter, Holmes and Cruise released a joint statement professing their commitment to work together as parents for their daughter’s best interests.   

So, what’s there left to talk about?

What I keep coming back to again and again was not that Holmes decided to end her marriage, but how she went about doing it. 

Continue ReadingWhat Katie Holmes’ Split from Tom Cruise Can Teach Us