Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277 (1992) (Considering in habeas corpus case the question whether the de novo review standard for mixed questions of law and fact established in 1953 [the Brown v. Allen standard] should be overruled).
Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (Reversing a Fourth Circuit determination that the court did not have jurisdiction over an appeal because the defendant's pro se brief could not serve as a timely notice of appeal).
Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129 (1991) (Holding by a 5-4 vote in one of the first federal sentencing guidelines cases reviewed by the Court that defendant must get notice if the court is considering a sua sponte departure from the guideline sentencing range).
Peralta v. United States Attorney's Office, 136 F.3d 169 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Reversing district court order dismissing Executive Office for United States Attorneys as respondent in a FOIA case and referring complaint to FBI for processing. The Court noted that the tangled record led to the appointment of "Georgetown's able Appellate Litigation Program" as amicus to help sort out the confusion, and to make sense of the jurisdictional issues raised by this case).
Anyanwutaku v. Moore, 151 F.3d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Reversing, in part, and remanding civil rights complaint for further consideration of one of appellant's constitutional claims after rejecting appellee's claim that challenges that may affect parole eligibility must be brought as habeas corpus actions).
Bazuaye v. United States, 83 F.3d 482 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Reversing district court and holding that Bazuaye may sue the United States for improperly seizing money and holding that FTCA 2680(c) exception does not apply to law enforcement officials unless they are acting in a customs or excise capacity).
Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1273 (1996) (Upholding the authority of district court to dismiss civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) on the basis that the action is barred by an affirmative defense).
Goldsmith v. Witkowski, 981 F.2d 697 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 3020 (1993) (Successful Jackson v. Virginia challenge on petition for writ of habeas corpus to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the defendant's South Carolina drug offense convictions).
Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 353 F.3d 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Holding that victims of international terrorism may not sue foreign state-sponsors of terrorism under the Flatow Amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and noting that "the advocates from the Appellate Litigation Program responded admirably on very short notice in assisting the court with an outstanding brief and oral argument.")
Bettis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 315 F.3d 325 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Affirming a judgment that nieces and nephews of a victim of terrorist acts could not sue for international infliction of emotional distress, and noting that the Court's appreciation for the Appellate Litigation Program's "truly outstanding" brief and oral argument.)
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004) (Granting a certificate of appealability to Ms. Reid after deciding that a certificate of appealability is necessary to appeal a denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion.