Regulators could
review our practice of taking reservation payments and, if the practice is deemed to
violate applicable law, we could be required to
pay penalties or refund the reservation payments that we have received
for vehicles that are not immediately available
for delivery, to stop accepting additional reservation payments, to restructure certain aspects of our reservation program, and potentially to suspend or revoke our licenses to manufacture and sell our vehicles.
These include: United States v. Resendiz - Ponce, which presents the question whether the omission of an element from a federal indictment can constitute harmless error (9th Circuit says no); Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., on whether a provider of
pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier
for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation
for coinless
pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law
violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin,
reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture on them.