federal court

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s former chief of staff seeks to delay sentencing because of health issues

Dana Williamson, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s onetime chief of staff, is seeking to delay her criminal sentencing date for political corruption because of health issues, according to documents filed last week in federal court.

Williamson’s attorney McGregor Scott, asked the court to delay her Sept. 17 sentencing and seal documents related to her health condition.

Scott submitted documents that reference a Sept. 4 surgery that Williamson underwent, medical records, and a text message from Williamson’s mother about the surgery.

Williamson underwent a liver transplant earlier this year, prompting a judge to delay a February hearing in her case.

A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of California didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about the requested sentencing delay.

Scott declined to comment.

Williamson, who worked for Newsom until 2024, pleaded guilty in May to three counts, including committing bank and wire fraud.

Williamson, a veteran political consultant who also formerly worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Gray Davis, admitted she took part in a scheme from 2022 to 2024 to skim campaign funds from then-U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, now a leading candidate for governor, and divert the money to Becerra’s then-chief of staff.

She also admitted in her plea deal to filing a false tax form in 2024 and lying to FBI agents that same year.

Beyond lying to the FBI about the scheme involving Becerra, Williamson misled federal authorities on another topic, the plea agreement stated.

She lied to FBI agents when asked about the state’s lawsuit against video game company Activision Blizzard Inc., details contained in the November indictment against Williamson and other public records show.

Source link

President Trump loses again in bid to erase his hush money conviction

A federal judge on Friday once again spurned President Trump’s effort to erase his hush money conviction, rejecting the president’s bid to move the state court case to federal court and have it dismissed on presidential immunity grounds.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein reiterated his earlier finding against Trump, saying that the reasons Trump cited for renewing his request were “neither new nor legally sufficient.”

The judge added: “He has failed to show good cause and diligence.”

It is the third time Hellerstein has blocked Trump from having the U.S. District Court in Manhattan seize control of the case from the New York court where he was tried and convicted.

And, like before, Trump will appeal, according to a spokesperson for his legal team who called Hellerstein’s ruling “baseless and lawless.”

“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be removed to federal court, and immediately overturned and dismissed,” a statement issued on behalf of the legal team said. “President Trump will be filing a powerful appeal, and will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn.”

The guilty verdict, reached in May 2024 while Trump was between terms, made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. Trump is also challenging his conviction through the state court appellate process, which is pending.

Hellerstein’s decision came after a federal appeals court last year ordered him to reconsider his prior denial. The judge previewed his ruling during oral arguments in February, slamming Trump’s lawyers for legal maneuvers that amounted to taking “two bites at the apple.”

State prosecutors did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case centered on a payment to Stormy Daniels

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose claim of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier had threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge, which left his conviction intact but spared him any punishment. He had long denied Daniels’ claim and said he did nothing wrong. He has sought to get the conviction overturned both by attempting to move the case to federal court and through the appeals process in state court, which is pending.

Hellerstein rejected Trump’s requests to move the case twice before. The first was after Trump’s March 2023 indictment. The second was after Trump’s trial, as his lawyers sought to nix his conviction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling that presidents and ex-presidents can’t be prosecuted for official acts and prosecutors can’t use official acts as evidence that unofficial actions were illegal.

Trump appealed Hellerstein’s post-trial ruling and, last November, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the judge to reconsider his decision, finding that he had failed to consider “important issues relevant” to the president’s request to move the case.

A three-judge appellate panel said it expressed no view on how he should rule but instructed Hellerstein to closely review evidence that Trump claimed was related to official acts and whether Trump could argue those actions were taken as part of his White House duties.

The judges also instructed Hellerstein to determine if Trump had “diligently sought” to have the case moved to federal court and whether the case can even be moved to federal court now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.

During oral arguments in February, Hellerstein took issue with the Trump legal team’s decision-making after the Supreme Court ruling.

Instead of immediately seeking to move the case to federal court, he noted, Trump’s lawyers first asked the trial judge in state court, Juan Merchan, to throw out the verdict on immunity grounds. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. has ruled that exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown.

Trump, a Republican, did not attend the arguments.

Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision and that Trump’s legal team was crunched for time after the high court’s ruling because his sentencing was scheduled for just 10 days later.

Trump’s lawyers did not ask Hellerstein to intervene until nearly two months later, while their request to Merchan was still pending. The judge called that a “strategic decision” and suggested that by going to the state court first, Trump’s lawyers cost him the right to pursue remedies in federal court.

“No, your honor,” Wall replied. “It is what any sensible litigant would do” in that situation.

“Not so,” Hellerstein replied.

“That is a decision on your part,” the judge added. “You didn’t have to do that. You could have come right to the federal court. Just by filing a notice of removal, there would be no sentencing.”

Trump’s lawyers “made a choice,” Hellerstein said, “and you sought two bites at the apple.”

In his written ruling Friday, Hellerstein said Trump was asking for a “‘second bite at the apple,’ a result the law disfavors.”

The judge added that “Trump’s delay in filing for removal constitutes a ‘quintessential strategic decision,’ and the ‘fact that he later came to view that decision as a poor one is not sufficient, by itself, to establish cause.’”

Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press.

Source link

Lawsuit against CIF is again dismissed in federal court

A lawsuit filed in Northern California federal court by former high school football player Dominik Calhoun against the California Interscholastic Federation was dismissed for a second time on Thursday after a hearing held by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, who granted an 84 motion.

The judge will allow the plaintiff to file an amended complaint by Sept. 10. There’s also the chance to appeal.

Calhoun has been challenging CIF rules on high school transfers and NIL.

The CIF had stopped considering possible changes in several policies, including transfers, while the lawsuit played out.

The question is whether discussions will resume about possible transfer reforms that were discussed in April of 2025.

Source link