CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RONALD C. LEWIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-5181
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:15-cr-00020-3—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge.
Decided and Filed: August 25, 2017
Before: CLAY, ROGERS, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This case presents the question of whether a warrant is required for a police officer, not investigating any wrongdoing, to open the passenger door of a parked truck to ask whether the sleeping occupant of the truck would be able to drive the occupant’s intoxicated girlfriend home. Fortunately, the Fourth Amendment does not impose technical prerequisites upon such a natural act of community service.

. . .

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO P. FONTANA,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-2208
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:14-cr-20141-1—David M. Lawson, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: August 25, 2017
Before: ROGERS, GRIFFIN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Following extradition from Canada on twelve federal childpornography-related charges, defendant Fontana pleaded guilty to four of those charges. He was then sentenced in a proceeding in which the sentencing judge took into account, in applying the applicable sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the fact that after Fontana’s arrest, investigators discovered videos and images of up to fifty other women, including minors, whom he had also victimized, none of whom were the basis for Fontana’s extradition. On appeal, Fontana challenges the district court’s consideration of the additional victims, as he did below, as a violation of the U.S.-Canada extradition treaty’s “specialty” requirement that he only be detained, tried, or punished for the crimes for which he was extradited. While an extradited person may defend his criminal prosecution as beyond the scope of the extradition under the “specialty” theory, Fontana’s challenge to his sentence fails here because the treaty does not preclude taking into account activity that is not the basis of the extradition in determining punishment for the crimes on which the extradition was based, at least as long as such consideration did not affect the statutory range of that punishment.

. . .

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is affirmed and Fontana’s motion to file a supplemental pro se brief is denied.