“Motions denied in flag desecration case; Judge files orders, sets trial date”: Saturday’s edition of The Ottumwa (Iowa) Courier contained an article that begins, “The judge has denied two motions to dismiss filed by an Ottumwan accused of flag desecration.”

“8th Circuit Grapples With Sentencing Guidelines; Judge warns of a possible unlawful precedent”: law.com provides this report.

Seventh Circuit vacates federal district court’s approval of settlement in Airborne Express default shipping fee overcharge class action: Today’s ruling sustains the federal district court’s exercise of diversity jurisdiction based on the defendant’s cost of complying with the requested injunction but finds that the district court did not adequately examine the fairness of the proposed coupon settlement.

“This appeal involves a facial challenge, under the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, to various aspects of Virginia’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, which generally prohibits the importation, distribution, and sale of wine and beer in Virginia except through a regulated, three-tier structure.” So begins an opinion that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

“The question before us is whether clearly established Supreme Court law prohibited the New York Appellate Division from dismissing Taveras’s first-tier appeal on fugitive disentitlement grounds without appointing counsel and without providing a copy of any transcripts available and necessary for pursuing that appeal.” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holds that dismissal of the state court appeal was prohibited under these circumstances in a habeas corpus ruling issued today.

“A plea to clarify the filing deadline”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “Two former U.S. solicitors general, Harvard law professor Charles Fried and Washington attorney Seth P. Waxman, have urged the Supreme Court to settle a long-standing issue: the nature of the Court’s authority to give lawyers more time to file appeals.” A copy of the court filing can be accessed here.

“Third Circuit adds nuance to crack sentencing after Booker“: Doug Berman has this post at his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog about an interesting ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today.

Programming note: I’ll be heading back home to the Philadelphia region after presenting oral argument this afternoon to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. Additional posts will appear later today.

Update: The particular three-judge Sixth Circuit panel that heard oral argument in my client’s case this afternoon was a pleasure to appear before. I also had the pleasure of meeting Circuit Judge Deborah L. Cook — who wasn’t on the three-judge panel that heard my client’s appeal — while waiting for an elevator.

“In his suit, Mr. Scholl alleges that the denial of his reappointment as a bankruptcy judge by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was in violation of his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and certain regulations relating to the reappointment of bankruptcy judges that have been promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United States.” Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion holding that “Because the Court of Federal Claims should not have exercised jurisdiction over Mr. Scholl’s suit and because the requirements for the writ of mandamus are met, we grant the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus and direct the court to dismiss Mr. Scholl’s complaint.”

“The Doe plaintiffs are a class of over 9,000 DOJ attorneys who seek pay for overtime work and holiday work performed between 1992 and 1999.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today issued an opinion that explains, “The Doe plaintiffs are Department of Justice attorneys who sued the government for alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945.” Today’s ruling rejects those claims on the merits.

“Blawg Review #74”: Available online here at “The Institute for Global Security Law and Policy.”

“Rap star loses Diddy name rights; Rap star Sean Combs is no longer to be called ‘Diddy’ in the UK after he agreed a settlement with a music producer already known by that name”: BBC News provides this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Diddy Can’t Be Diddy in Britain.”

“Quality and Quantity on Appeal”: That’s the title of the current installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com.

“As his execution nears, an inmate opens up; The ex-crack addict asks: How much remorse is enough for crime?” The Houston Chronicle contains this article today.

“Brash GOP challenger presses Chafee in R.I.; Laffey stays close to Bush’s stances”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

And USA Today reports today that “R.I. race a tussle for Senate’s most liberal Republican; Anti-tax upstart targets party maverick Chafee.”

“Post 9/11 Law: An Unfinished Journey.” CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen has this essay.

“Sex Offender Sues Va. to Keep Name off Web”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“CIA still hiding ‘ghost’ captives”: Sunday’s edition of The Times of London contained this article.

And The Associated Press reports that “U.S. Senators Visit Guantanamo Bay.”

“Go Redskins: But let the name go, too.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

“Weaving a tangled judicial web”: Yesterday in The Chicago Tribune, Law Professor David Scheffer had an op-ed that begins, “You might be forgiven if last Wednesday, when President Bush defended the abusive interrogations of suspected terrorists and sought legislation to paper over flaws of military commissions in Guantanamo, you experienced that sinking feeling that he just doesn’t get it.”

“Party Lines Blur in Surveillance Debate; Republican Leaders Want to Engage Democrats But Find Some of Their Own Dissenting”: This article (free access) appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

And The Los Angeles Times today contains an article headlined “Hidden Depths to U.S. Monitoring; The scope of domestic surveillance has steadily expanded since 9/11; But lawmakers and privacy experts complain of too little information on it.”

“The Guantanamo Gambit: Behind the transfer of terrorist suspects.” George Packer has this Talk of the Town comment in the September 18, 2006 issue of The New Yorker.

“Activism Is in the Eye of the Ideologist”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “Conservatives like to divide judges into liberal ‘activists’ and conservative nonactivists who interpret the law rather than making it.”

“Compassion has ruled judge’s career; Edward H. Johnstone 84, stops trying cases”: Yesterday’s issue of The Louisville Courier-Journal contained this profile of Senior U.S. District Judge Edward H. Johnstone.