United States v. Jonathan Vega

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC., PLASTIC SERVICES AND PRODUCTS, LLC, dba Genova Pipe, MICROKITS, LLC, FISHUSA INC., TERRY PRECISION CYCLING LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as Pres- ident of the United States, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES, PETE R. FLORES, Acting Commissioner for United States Customs and Border Protection, in his official ca- pacity as Acting Commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection, JAMIESON GREER, in his official capacity as United States Trade Representative, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, HOWARD LUTNICK, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2025-1812 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:25-cv-00066-GSK-TMR-JAR, Judge Gary S. 2 V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC. v. TRUMP Katzmann, Judge Timothy M. Reif, and Senior Judge Jane A. Restani. ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF OREGON, STATE OF ARIZONA, STATE OF COLORADO, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE OF DELAWARE, STATE OF ILLINOIS, STATE OF MAINE, STATE OF MINNESOTA, STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF VERMONT, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Homeland Security, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, PETE R. FLORES, Acting Commissioner for United States Customs and Border Protection, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, UNITED STATES, Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2025-1813 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:25-cv-00077-GSK-TMR-JAR, Judge Gary S. Katzmann, Judge Timothy M. Reif, and Senior Judge Jane A. Restani. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC. v. TRUMP 3 Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE, DYK, PROST, REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges. 1 PER CURIAM. ORDER The United States’s motions for a stay of the United States Court of International Trade’s rulings enjoining cer- tain Executive Orders imposing tariffs, the Plaintiffs-Ap- pellees’ oppositions, and the United States’s reply were presented to all circuit judges of this court in regular active service who are not recused or disqualified. Both sides have made substantial arguments on the merits. Having considered the traditional stay factors, see Fed. R. App. P. 8; Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009), the court con- cludes a stay is warranted under the circumstances. See also Trump v. Wilcox, 605 U.S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 1415, 1415 (2025) (per curiam) (“The purpose of . . . interim equitable relief is not to conclusively determine the rights of the par- ties, but to balance the equities as the litigation moves for- ward.” (quoting Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 582 U.S. 571, 580 (2017)). The court also concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance war- ranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motions for a stay pending appeal are granted. (2) All motions for leave to file briefs amicus curiae re- garding the stay motions are granted. (3) These consolidated cases will be heard en banc un- der 28 U.S.C. § 46 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 1 Circuit Judge Newman did not participate. 4 V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC. v. TRUMP 40(g). The court en banc shall consist of all circuit judges in regular active service who are not recused or disqualified in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 46(c). (4) Within two business days from the issuance of this order, the parties are directed to jointly file a proposed ex- pedited briefing schedule. The proposed briefing schedule should allow for this court to hold oral argument on July 31, 2025 at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 201. If the parties cannot agree upon a schedule, the joint submission should include the parties’ alternative proposals.

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 May 23, 2025 Before ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge No. 24-1524 CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY Appeal from the United States District Court OF AMERICA, for the Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, Eastern Division. v. No. 1:22-cv-01334 MULLINS FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., Jorge L. Alonso, Defendant-Appellant. Judge. ORDER Plaintiff-Appellee, Citizens Insurance Company of America, filed a Petition for Rehearing on May 16, 2025. All members of the panel have voted to deny rehearing but to amend the opinion dated May 2, 2025, as follows: At page 2, first full paragraph, three lines from the bottom of the paragraph, immediately before the word “indemnify,” insert the words “potentially to”; At page 14, last paragraph, fourth line, again insert the words “potentially to” immediately before “indemnify”; At page 21, in the first and only paragraph of the main text, lines 5-6, replace “must also” with “may potentially be required to”; No. 24-1524 Page 2 At page 21, at the end of the same paragraph, insert the following sentence: “The duty to indemnify Mullins has not been briefed in this appeal and remains to be sorted out on remand.” At page 32, four lines from the bottom of the paragraph, insert the following sentence immediately prior to the sentence beginning “We therefore VACATE . . .”: “Also in the event the district court determines that timely notice was given to Citizens, the district court must resolve whether Citizens has a duty to indemnify Mullins.” The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-2882 EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED and TATA AMERICA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 14-cv-748-wmc — William M. Conley, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED MAY 29, 2025 — DECIDED JUNE 4, 2025 ____________________ Before EASTERBROOK, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. A jury concluded that Tata Consultancy Services must pay Epic Systems $940 million: $240 million as compensation for the unauthorized use of con- fidential information and $700 million as punitive damages. After reducing the compensatory award to $140 million and the punitive award to $280 million, the district court entered 2 No. 24-2882 judgment on October 3, 2017. We affirmed the compensatory damages but held that the Constitution limits the punitive award to $140 million. 980 F.3d 1117 (7th Cir. 2020). On re- mand the district court denied Tata’s request to reduce puni- tive damages below $140 million. It entered a new judgment for a total of $280 million on July 12, 2022. We affirmed, con- cluding that Tata’s brazen and outrageous misconduct—steal- ing commercially valuable information and trying to prevent the theft’s discovery—justifies punitive damages of $140 mil- lion. No. 22-2420 (7th Cir. July 14, 2023) (nonprecedential dis- position). That did not end the dispute, however. Tata agreed to pay postjudgment interest on the compensatory damages from the 2017 judgment but insisted that postjudgment interest on punitive damages should run only from the 2022 judgment. About $6 million turns on the difference. The district court sided with Tata, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171708 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 23, 2024), and Epic appealed. The controlling statute is 28 U.S.C. §1961(a), which pro- vides: “Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court.” The time at which postjudgment interest begins to run thus depends on the date of a “money judgment … recovered in a district court.” What happens when multiple judgments are recovered in the same case? Here there are two, one in 2017 and the other in 2022. The statute does not choose. An amount provided in the first judgment and removed from the second cannot be the basis of interest. So the Supreme Court held in Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 836 (1990). But both the 2017 judgment and the 2022 judgment award $140 million No. 24-2882 3 in compensatory damages plus at least $140 million in puni- tive damages. Our 2020 opinion vacated the judgment and remanded, but we did not disapprove either the compensatory damages or the first $140 million of the punitive award. Long ago the Supreme Court said, when interpreting a predecessor to §1961(a), that “[t]he rights of parties are not to be sacrificed to the mere leier, and whether the language used was reversed, modified, or affirmed in part and reversed in part, is immate- rial. Equity looks beyond these words of description to see what was in fact ordered to be done.” Kneeland v. American Loan & Trust Co., 138 U.S. 509, 512 (1891). None of the modest changes to what is now §1961(a) produced by its recodifica- tion in 1948, and later amendments to alter the rate of interest, calls Kneeland’s approach into question. “[W]hat was in fact … done” in 2020 was to block any punitive award in excess of $140 million. The difference between vacatur and reentry, on the one hand, and modifying the 2017 judgment, on the other, is not material to the parties’ entitlements. Still, our 2020 opinion did not hold that a punitive award of $140 million is compulsory. It was possible that the district judge would reduce it on remand. Possible yes, probable no. The jury awarded Epic $700 mil- lion in punitive damages. The reason the judge cut the award to $280 million was a state law in Wisconsin that caps punitive damages at double the compensatory award. Wis. Stat. §895.043(6). (Epic’s claims rest on state law.) Seiing the judg- ment at the statutory maximum is inconsistent with a belief by the district judge that the award should be lower, let alone that the award should be less than half of the statutory cap. It was no surprise, therefore, when the district judge on remand 4 No. 24-2882 fixed punitive damages at $140 million, the maximum amount that this court held to be constitutionally permissible,

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-2118 DYAMOND DAVIS and ANTIONETTE BURNS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 2:18-cv-02246 — Colin S. Bruce, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED APRIL 12, 2023 — DECIDED MAY 14, 2025 ____________________ Before SCUDDER, KIRSCH, and LEE Circuit Judges. LEE, Circuit Judge. On May 12, 2017, Dyamond Davis told her supervisor at the Shapiro Development Center, an as- sisted living facility operated by Defendant Illinois Depart- ment of Human Services (“DHS”), that she had to leave work due to morning sickness caused by her pregnancy. Her super- visor agreed, reminding Davis to complete the necessary timekeeping paperwork. 2 No. 22-2118 Several weeks later, DHS granted Davis’s request for preg- nancy leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”), retroactive to May. Never- theless, it later determined that a portion of her absence on May 12 was unauthorized for two reasons. First, it believed that Davis’s FMLA leave did not cover morning sickness; sec- ond, it concluded that Davis had violated Shapiro’s policies requiring the substitution of accrued paid leave for FMLA leave. And so, DHS terminated Davis’s employment in ac- cordance with its attendance plan. Following an unsuccessful appeal of her termination to the Illinois Civil Service Commission, Davis brought suit, alleg- ing that DHS had interfered with her FMLA-protected rights. Another Shapiro employee, Antionette Burns, joined the com- plaint asserting a substantially similar claim. After discovery, the district court dismissed Burns’s claim for lack of Article III standing and entered summary judgment in favor of DHS on Davis’s claim. Davis v. Ill. Dep’t Hum. Servs., No. 18-CV-2246, 2022 WL 2287938, at *11 (C.D. Ill. May 31, 2022). Davis and Burns appealed. Because we agree that Burns has failed to establish a con- crete injury-in-fact, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of her claim without prejudice. But because we find that dis- putes of material fact exist as to Davis’s FMLA claim against DHS, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judg- ment as to her claim and remand for further proceedings. I. A. The FMLA and Pregnancy A review of the applicable law will provide a helpful framework for the facts in this case. Under the FMLA, eligible No. 22-2118 3 employees are entitled to twelve workweeks of leave during any twelve-month period due to a “serious health condition” that renders them “unable to perform the functions of [their] position.” 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D). A “serious health condi- tion” is one that involves “continuing treatment by a health care provider” and includes any period of incapacity due to pregnancy or prenatal care. Id. § 2611(11)(B); 29 C.F.R. § 825.115(b). Moreover, absences attributable to pregnancy- related illnesses, such as severe morning sickness, qualify for FMLA leave even if the employee does not visit the doctor during the absence. 29 C.F.R. § 825.115(f); see id. § 825.120(a)(4). In short, the FMLA applies to both pregnancy and pregnancy-induced morning sickness. Although pregnant employees are entitled to FMLA leave for morning sickness, that right is not absolute. Employers have the right to require that their employees provide a med- ical certification to justify the need for leave due to any serious health condition. 29 U.S.C. § 2613(a). And where an employee seeks intermittent leave for a serious health condition “that may result in unforeseeable episodes of incapacity,” the em- ployer is entitled to require a medical certification that in- cludes “information sufficient to establish the medical neces- sity” for such intermittent leave. 29 C.F.R. § 825.306(a)(7). In other words, employers may require pregnant employees to medically certify the need for intermittent leave due to morn- ing sickness, just as employers are entitled to seek medical certification of any other serious health condition. Where an employer, like DHS, exercises its right to require a medical certification, an employee must provide a “com- plete and sufficient” certification. Id. § 825.305(c). If the em- ployer believes the certification to be incomplete or 4 No. 22-2118 insufficient, it is obligated to inform the employee and “state in writing what additional information is necessary t

DLD-156 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ Nos. 25-1426 & 25-1427 ___________ ERIC BARTOLI, Appellant v. DIRECTOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; WARDEN LORETTO FCI ___________ ERIC BARTOLI, Appellant v. WARDEN LORETTO FCI ____________________________________ On Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action Nos. 3:23-cv-00204 & 3:23-cv-00057) Magistrate Judge: Honorable Patricia L. Dodge ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 May 22, 2025 Before: RESTREPO, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 10, 2025) _________ OPINION * * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not  _________ PER CURIAM Pro se Appellant Eric Bartoli appeals from District Court orders dismissing his two petitions for writ of habeas corpus that he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will affirm. I Bartoli fled to Peru after a grand jury indicted him for crimes related to his running a Ponzi scheme. Years later, he was arrested and extradited to face those charges in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. He pled guilty in that Court to charges related to that Ponzi scheme. Bartoli received a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment and was ordered to pay $42 million in restitution. Bartoli’s direct appeal proved unsuccessful. See United States v. Bartoli, 728 F. App’x 424 (6th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, Bartoli v. United States, 587 U.S. 925 (2019). Bartoli then sought collateral relief by filing a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2255 See United States v. Bartoli, C.A. No. 23-3983, 2024 WL 4987352, at *1-2 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2024) (discussing Bartoli’s collateral proceedings). While Bartoli’s § 2255 proceedings were pending, he filed two § 2241 habeas corpus petitions in the Western District of Pennsylvania (where he was incarcerated) in April 2023 and September 2023. In his April 2023 petition, Bartoli argued that his extradition to the United States from Peru constitute binding precedent. 2 prior to his conviction was illegal and violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, and that trial counsel’s failure to raise this issue constituted ineffective assistance. In his September 2023 petition, Bartoli challenged the validity of his sentence pursuant to the Double Jeopardy and Due Process Clauses as well as the Eighth Amendment. On February 25, 2025, the District Court 1 dismissed both petitions for lack of jurisdiction. Bartoli appealed. This Court notified the parties that these appeals, which have since been consolidated, might be subject to summary action. Appellees filed responses to that notification. Bartoli did not. II We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In reviewing the District Court’s dismissals of Bartoli’s § 2241 habeas corpus petitions, we exercise plenary review over its legal conclusions and review findings of fact for clear error. See O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 173 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We may summarily affirm the District Court’s decisions if the appeals fail to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6; see also Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam). III Section 2241 gives a District Court jurisdiction over “the petition of a federal prisoner who is [attacking] not the validity but the execution of his sentence.” Cardona v. 1 The parties consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) in both cases. 3 Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533, 535 (3d Cir. 2012). Here, however, Bartoli challeng