stating that “the pertinent question in determining whether a federal district court is *830 precluded under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim is whether the source of the injury upon which plaintiff bases his federal claim is the state court judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- stating that “the pertinent question in determining whether a federal district court is *830 precluded under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim is whether the source of the injury upon which plaintiff bases his federal claim is the state court judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
- holding that it is "well established that a defendant's remorse-or lack thereof-is an appropriate consideration in meting out punishment."
- stating that “[d]ue process is not implicated by the consideration of a defendant’s lack of remorse as an aggravating factor” and that “a defendant’s remorse—or lack thereof—is an appropriate consideration in meting out punishment”
- holding that the federal court was not permitted to review the adequacy of the state disbarment proceedings, but only whether alleged defects in the state proceedings tainted the federal disbarment proceedings
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROGERS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately only to express my understanding that our review in this case does not extend to the sufficiency of the evidence in the state disbarment proceeding.