A federal appeals court today said the judge who sentenced Dianne Wilkerson to 42 months behind bars for corruption did nothing wrong.

Wilkerson's lawyers argued Judge Douglas Woodlock displayed unacceptable bias against Wilkerson in bringing up her statements about a prior tax-evasion conviction and in saying that in prior state civil campaign-finance
violations, Wilkerson had gained access to money she shouldn't have had. Her lawyers said the latter comment carried the implication that Wilkerson put the money in question to personal use, when there was no proof she did.

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, however, noted that Wilkerson could have received a far stiffer sentence under sentencing guidelines for her crimes:

The district court's colloquial phrasing about "access to money she should not have had" is a fair comment on the implications of non-compliance with campaign-finance requirements.

The court also rejected as poppycock Wilkerson's lawyers argument that Woodlock went to far in referring to a $15,000, six-month contract Roxbury Community College gave Wilkerson as she sought money for her legal defense was one of "a series of very embarrassing things" she did.

In fact, that was an embarrassing thing she did, the court ruled:

Her work largely consisted of arranging three lectures, to be given by other speakers, on topics of public concern. Measuring the 'proportionality' of compensation is not an exact science, but Wilkerson's arrangement with the college certainly would have been remunerative, and the main impetus behind it appears to have been the influence brought to bear by her supporter. The district court's skeptical appraisal of Wilkerson's arrangement with the college was within the bounds of reasonableness.

• Complete ruling, US vs. Dianne Wilkerson

Photographynatalia took in the Revere Spring Carnival, which runs through the 15th at the Showcase Cinemas on Rte. 60.

Copyright Photographynatalia. Posted in the Universal Hub pool on Flickr.

Bain & Co. (different from Bain Capital) is suing a Colorado man it charges is using its name and mission statement to drum up business for his own consulting firm.

In a lawsuit filed yesterday in US District Court in Boston, Bain alleges that when its lawyers asked Him Woods to knock it off, he responded by telling them they could "kiss my black ass" and that unless Bain backed off - or paid him $20,000 for the bainconsultinggroup.com domain name - he would unleash "a social media onslaught" against the Boston-based firm.

Visitors to the Web site this morning get a "Sorry! This site is not currently available" error message, but a Google cache of the site shows that it formerly advertised Bain Consulting as:

We are a global management consultancy specializing in strategic innovation and competitive advantage solutions focused solely on catalyzing top-line growth. We do this by devising innovative strategies that drive consumer demand and create unconventional financial rewards. Join us.

Bain's lawsuit seeks an injunction against Woods's use of the Bain name, plus, naturally, plenty of money for the "irreparable damage" to its brand.