Michael Hayward and Michael Stern were convicted in July 2006 after they were accused of stealing $1 million apiece. Prosecutors said they had skimmed small amounts of money from stocks they were entrusted to oversee.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals notes that the government had already conceded that the conduct of the men was not manipulative. The court says their conduct was not deceptive either.

Hayward and Stern had worked for Van der Moolen Specialists USA LLC.

Hold those giant catamarans just a minute, you bickering billionaires.

The America's Cup appears to be headed away from a rare one-on-one showdown between American and Swiss crews and back to its traditional multichallenger format following a ruling by a New York appeals court Tuesday that went against a San Francisco yacht club that backs Silicon Valley maverick Larry Ellison.

In the latest 180-degree turn in a yearlong court fight, the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division ruled 3-2 that Spain's Club Nautico Espanol de Vela should be the Challenger of Record, giving it the right to negotiate terms of the next competition with the current America's Cup holder, Alinghi of Switzerland.

The decision, based on what the court said was "ambiguous" language in the Deed of Gift, the century-old document that governs the America's Cup, reversed a lower-court ruling that made the Golden Gate Yacht Club the Challenger of Record.

Although Golden Gate Yacht Club can file a last-chance appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals in Albany, Tuesday's ruling leads the way for a return to the traditional format in which the winner of a challenger elimination series races the defending champion for the oldest trophy in international sports.

BMW Oracle Racing, backed by the GGYC, and Alinghi have been preparing for an expected one-on-one match in 90-foot multihull boats, the result of a lower-court ruling that GGYC was the Challenger of Record.

GGYC said it will consider the implications of Tuesday's ruling before deciding its next step.

Twenty-seven years later, Morton Grove has repealed its law, bowing to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that affirmed homeowners' right to keep guns for self-defense.

It's one of several Illinois communities — reluctant to spend money on legal fights — rushing to repeal their gun bans after the court struck down a Washington, D.C., ban, even as cities such as Chicago and San Francisco stand firm.

Mayor Richard Krier acknowledges Morton Grove's place in history, but said that didn't affect the village board's 5-1 decision Monday to amend its ordinance to allow the possession of handguns. The village still bans the sale of guns.

"There hasn't been any pressure" to keep the ban, Krier said, noting that the village's ordinance has been under scrutiny since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Washington case. He also pointed out that the mostly residential village has never had a big problem with gun crime.

Though Morton Grove's gun ban is five years younger than Washington's, it's considered the first in the country because the village is a municipality, whereas D.C. is a federal district.

Gun rights advocates hailed the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision affirming that individuals have a right to own guns and keep them in their homes for self-defense.

The state Senate voted to repeal the law earlier this month and Gov. Deval Patrick has said he will sign it.

Opponents say repealing the ban will attract many out-of-state gay couples to Massachusetts for marriages.

Some proponents say that would be an economic boon for the state, and would allow Massachusetts to compete with California.

A California Supreme Court ruling recently made gay marriage legal there with no residency requirement.

In the lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court, the American Trucking Associations said it does not oppose efforts to clean up the air but is concerned that other measures in the plans violate federal laws by unfairly regulating prices, routes and services.

The lawsuit claims the regulations favor bigger trucking companies over independent truckers and limit the number of trucks allowed to enter the ports, reducing market competition.

Truckers must agree to the plans to retain access to the ports after Oct. 1.

"It's a barrier to entry," said Curtis Whalen of the Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference, an affiliate of the 37,000-member association. "We don't think the ports have the legal ability to do that."

The association wants the court to permanently restrict the plans from being implemented.

Defendants named in the lawsuit include the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach along with their harbor departments and commissions.

"We feel that the program is legally defensible and we see no problem in continuing to move forward with this plan," said Lee Peterson, a spokesman for the Port of Long Beach.

Both cities passed plans earlier this year aimed at reducing truck pollution at the ports by as much as 80 percent. The plans would require trucks to meet tougher 2007 federal emissions standards by Jan. 12, 2012, along with a $35 cargo fee to pay for the newer, cleaner-running trucks.

During a sentencing hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Jerome Simandle also ordered Levy to repay the $25,000 in extra benefits he received as a result of the lies.

Known as the "missing mayor" because he dropped out of sight for two weeks last fall, Levy later admitted to lying about what he did in the war in order to obtain the extra veteran's benefits.

He stepped down as mayor last October, after admitting his two-week absence was to attend a clinic for treatment of substance abuse and mental health issues.

During Friday's hearing, Simandle said Levy unquestionably suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.

"This case is ultimately a sad case of human failure that was provoked and promoted by being asked as a 17-year-old to do some very difficult and dangerous duty on behalf of their country," Simandle said.

The judge said Levy continues to exaggerate his military service, specifically by saying he did work for a special operations unit called "the pathfinders," which set up drop zones during the war and made other combat preparations behind enemy lines.

Levy insisted he had done several missions with the unit even though he was not a member of it.

"I wasn't no hero, running around like Rambo," Levy said. "I was scared to death. I was running around with a radio on my back, doing the best I can."

But Simandle noted that officials with the Veteran's Administration interviewed commanders and members of the special unit Levy claimed to have served with, and none remembered him.

Ultimately, the judge said Levy continues having trouble determining what is real and what is not.

"What he went through was a crisis," the judge said. "He didn't come out of it well."

Christopher Scott Emmett, 36, was pronounced dead at 9:07 p.m. He was convicted of beating a co-worker to death with a brass lamp in 2001 so he could steal the man's money to buy crack cocaine.

Emmett's appeal was the first to require a federal appeals court to interpret a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that upheld Kentucky's three-drug method of lethal injection and apply it to another state's procedures.

Gov. Tim Kaine declined to intervene with the sentence being carried out.

"Tell my family and friends I love them, tell the governor he just lost my vote," Emmett said in the chamber before he died. "Y'all hurry this along, I'm dying to get out of here."

The lethal injection appeared to go as planned. Emmett was pronounced dead about five minutes after he was first sedated.

His attorneys claimed that Virginia's use of lethal injection amounted to cruel and unusual punishment because of the possibility that paralyzing and heart-stopping drugs could be administered before inmates are rendered unconscious by another drug.

Unlike Kentucky, Virginia does not allow for a second dose of sodium thiopental, which results in a deep, coma-like unconsciousness, even when a second round of the other drugs is required. Virginia also administers the three drugs more quickly than Kentucky.

In 10 of the 70 lethal injections performed in Virginia before this year, a second dose of the last two drugs was given because the inmate did not die within a few minutes after the heart-stopping drug was administered, according to court papers.

Earlier this month, a divided panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled that Virginia's protocol was similar enough to Kentucky's that it would not cause inmates excruciating pain. Emmett's attorneys had asked the full court to review the case, but justices voted 6-4 against the full hearing.

Judge Roger Gregory, writing in favor of the full court hearing Emmett's appeal, said that the Supreme Court found the sodium thiopental "essential to the humanity of Kentucky's procedure," and that Virginia did not offer safeguards comparable to those used in Kentucky to ensure that inmates didn't experience excruciating pain.

Emmett was the 102nd inmate executed in Virginia since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976. Only Texas has executed more prisoners.