Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Marvin Johnson was convicted of multiple offenses, including the kidnapping and murder of his ex-girlfriend’s son, as well as rape and aggravated robbery of his ex-girlfriend. The crimes occurred after Johnson’s relationship with his ex-girlfriend ended and he was told to move out of her house. Johnson harbored resentment and, after discussing violent intentions with a friend, returned to his ex-girlfriend’s home, killed her son, and then assaulted and robbed her. He was apprehended while attempting to flee and much of the stolen money, as well as other incriminating evidence, was recovered.An Ohio jury convicted Johnson of all charges and recommended the death penalty, which the trial court imposed. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentence. Johnson unsuccessfully pursued postconviction relief and applications to reopen his appeal, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. He then filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which was denied. While his federal appeal was pending, a state court vacated his death sentence after finding him seriously mentally ill and resentenced him to life without parole, but left his convictions intact.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the resentencing rendered the federal habeas petition moot. The court held that Johnson’s claims regarding the guilt phase of his trial were not moot and that it still had jurisdiction because Johnson remains incarcerated based on the underlying convictions. The court then addressed Johnson’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After reviewing the record and arguments, the Sixth Circuit concluded that Johnson failed to show prejudice resulting from his trial or appellate counsel’s performance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "Johnson v. Bobby" on Justia Law

An agent employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervised participants in an Alternatives-to-Detention program, which allowed him significant discretion over their conditions, such as monitoring protocols and the handling of their passports. The agent engaged in sexual relations with multiple women under his supervision, violating agency policy. After one participant reported his behavior, an investigation revealed further evidence of misconduct, including deleted photos and communications. The agent attempted to impede the investigation by providing lenient supervision to a participant in exchange for her silence. One supervisee accused the agent of sexual assault, testifying to repeated coerced encounters.A jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio convicted the agent on several counts, including depriving a person of constitutional rights under color of law, obstructing a sex-trafficking investigation, witness tampering, and destruction of records. The district court sentenced him to 144 months in prison. During trial, the court excused an ill juror during deliberations, which the defendant challenged as an abuse of discretion. He also argued that multiple counts were improperly multiplicitous, raising double jeopardy concerns, and challenged several sentencing enhancements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excusing the juror due to medical necessity. The appellate court found no plain error regarding multiplicity, as each contested count required proof of distinct elements or conduct. The court also upheld the sentencing enhancements, finding no error in applying an obstruction of justice enhancement to pre-investigation conduct under the amended Sentencing Guidelines, no impermissible double counting, and no error regarding the sentencing guidelines in relation to statutory maximums. The requirement that the defendant register as a sex offender was also affirmed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence in all respects. View "United States v. Golobic" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who owned a cell phone store near Chicago and purchased stolen phones from robbery crews based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. These crews conducted armed robberies at retail cell phone stores, sometimes injuring employees and stealing both store and personal property. The defendant was not physically present at the robberies but played an active role by encouraging, directing, and facilitating the thefts, including providing instructions on what to steal and how to avoid law enforcement. He would travel to Michigan to acquire the stolen merchandise, then resell it domestically and internationally, using his technical skills to circumvent security measures on the devices.Following investigation, law enforcement linked the defendant to a series of robberies and recovered evidence from his electronic accounts. A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan indicted him on conspiracy and interstate transportation of stolen goods. A jury convicted him on all counts. At sentencing, the district court applied multiple enhancements based on the conduct of his coconspirators and for use of sophisticated means, resulting in a sentence of 109 months' imprisonment. The defendant appealed, arguing that the sentencing enhancements were improperly applied to his case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the district court properly attributed the coconspirators’ conduct to the defendant and whether the sophisticated-means enhancement was appropriate. The appellate court found that the district court did not err in its determination that the robberies and associated conduct were within the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, and that the defendant’s actions met the requirements for the sophisticated-means enhancement. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence. View "United States v. Yousef" on Justia Law

Two physicians who operated a pain management clinic and laboratory were indicted on multiple federal charges, including conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances, health care fraud, and making false statements relating to health care matters. In exchange for the government dropping the majority of charges, both defendants pled guilty to a single count of making false statements about health care matters. The plea agreements included stipulations that they submitted nearly 3,000 claims to government health benefit programs for unnecessary drug screens, receiving over $166,000 in payments, and contained waivers of their right to appeal the conviction or sentence unless the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio sentenced each defendant to five years of probation, ordered restitution of the full amount defrauded to be paid jointly and severally, and imposed a fine of $125,000 on each. At sentencing, the defendants objected to the fines as procedurally improper, unsupported by the record, and unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The district court rejected these arguments.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the appellate waivers in the plea agreements barred the defendants’ challenges. The court held that the waivers precluded their arguments regarding procedural and substantive unreasonableness of the fines. Regarding the Eighth Amendment claim, the court concluded that, even if not barred, the argument failed because the fines were not grossly disproportional to the stipulated offense conduct, which included the full fraudulent scheme and resulting harm. The court found the fines were well below the statutory maximum and appropriate given the seriousness and scope of the offense. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of the fines. View "United States v. Mukhdomi" on Justia Law

Retired employees of two companies, who participated in their employers’ defined benefit pension plans, brought class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). These plaintiffs, all married, claimed that their plans calculated joint and survivor annuity benefits using mortality tables based on outdated data from the 1960s and 1970s. Because life expectancies have increased since then, the plaintiffs asserted that using such outdated mortality assumptions improperly reduced their benefits, resulting in joint and survivor annuities that were not the actuarial equivalent of the single life annuities to which they would otherwise be entitled, as required by ERISA.Each group of plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court—one in the Eastern District of Michigan against the Kellogg plans and one in the Western District of Tennessee against the FedEx plan—asserting that the use of obsolete actuarial assumptions violated 29 U.S.C. § 1055(d) and constituted a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The district courts in both cases dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim, holding that ERISA does not require use of any particular mortality table or actuarial assumption in calculating benefits for married participants, and thus the allegations, even if true, did not establish a violation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that, under ERISA’s statutory requirement that joint and survivor annuities be “actuarially equivalent” to single life annuities, plans must use actuarial assumptions, including mortality data, that reasonably reflect the life expectancies of current participants. The court concluded that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the use of outdated mortality tables was unreasonable and could violate ERISA. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district courts’ judgments and remanded both cases for further proceedings. View "Reichert v. Kellogg Co." on Justia Law

The case centers on a series of lawsuits initiated by an individual against the City of Athens, Tennessee, its officials, and employees, stemming from events related to the City’s annual fireworks show. In 2022, due to COVID-19 precautions, attendance at the show was restricted to City employees and their families. The plaintiff, objecting to the exclusion of the general public, attended the event in protest and began filming, which led to confrontations with City employees and ultimately police involvement. Subsequent disputes, including statements made by City officials regarding settlement negotiations and the cancellation of future fireworks shows, prompted the plaintiff to file multiple lawsuits alleging defamation and First Amendment retaliation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee reviewed the plaintiff’s claims in several cases. It granted summary judgment or dismissed the actions for failure to state a claim, rejected motions to recuse the assigned judges, and, in each case, awarded sanctions and attorneys’ fees to the defendants. The plaintiff and his attorney appealed the sanctions and recusal orders, but not the merits of the underlying claims, which had already been dismissed or affirmed in previous appeals or were unreviewable due to procedural defects. Prior appellate proceedings, including one in which the appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute, precluded reconsideration of the underlying merits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed only the sanctions and recusal orders. Applying abuse of discretion and de novo review where appropriate, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the district court properly denied recusal and correctly imposed sanctions. The appellate court found the plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, often barred by immunity or privilege, and part of a pattern of harassing litigation. The court affirmed the district court’s awards of attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-20-113, as well as the denial of the recusal motions. View "Whiting v. City of Athens" on Justia Law

While serving a term of supervised release following a conviction for conspiring to distribute cocaine, the defendant engaged in multiple serious violations. He defrauded an elderly woman, convincing her through repeated false kidnapping stories to send him approximately $300,000. He also faked drug tests to conceal ongoing substance use and was convicted in municipal court for driving with a suspended license. These violations were discovered through the probation officer’s investigation, including review of text messages and admissions by the defendant.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio found that the defendant had breached several conditions of his supervised release. After a hearing, the court revoked his supervised release, imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, followed by five additional years of supervised release, and added a special condition prohibiting contact with his longtime girlfriend who had assisted in the fraud. The defendant objected to both the length of his sentence and the no-contact condition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the district court did not err by considering the seriousness of the defendant’s violation in fashioning the revocation sentence, as the law permits consideration of deterrence, public protection, and breach of trust. The sentence was found substantively reasonable, with the district court acting within its discretion. The appellate court also concluded the restriction on communication with the girlfriend was reasonably related to the goals of supervised release and did not impose an undue burden on the defendant’s constitutional rights, as it was tailored to prevent further criminal activity and protect both the victim and the girlfriend. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

In 2001, after a failed business partnership, an individual kidnapped and killed his former partner. The police investigation began when the victim’s family reported him missing and started receiving ransom calls, which were traced to the accused. Upon arrest, the accused gave a false account, alleging he had been kidnapped, but evidence contradicted his story. Surveillance footage, ballistic evidence, and the eventual discovery of the victim’s body all implicated the accused. At trial, the jury convicted him on multiple charges, including kidnapping and first-degree manslaughter, and recommended a life sentence, which the court imposed.Following his conviction, the accused pursued various appeals and collateral challenges. On direct appeal, he explicitly waived his right to counsel and chose to proceed pro se, despite warnings from the Kentucky Supreme Court and the Department of Public Advocacy. The Kentucky Supreme Court ultimately affirmed his conviction and sentence. Subsequent collateral attacks under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 were largely unsuccessful, though he did secure a resentencing on one count, which resulted in the same effective sentence. Further attempts to challenge his conviction, including a second belated appeal and additional Rule 11.42 motions, were denied as untimely or successive, with these decisions upheld on appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed two claims from his federal habeas petition: whether he was improperly allowed to proceed pro se on direct appeal, and whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective during closing arguments. The court held that the accused knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appellate counsel. On the ineffective assistance claim, the court found it procedurally defaulted and not subject to any exception, as the claim lacked merit and he had not shown prejudice. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the habeas petition. View "Gaither v. Lane" on Justia Law

Four individuals alleged that they owned funds subject to Ohio’s unclaimed property regime and that their funds were set to escheat, or transfer, to the state as of January 1, 2026, due to recent amendments to Ohio’s Unclaimed Funds Act. The Act requires holders of unclaimed funds to remit those funds to the state after a period of dormancy, with additional amendments providing that funds held for ten years or more would escheat to the state, although owners would still have ten additional years to claim an equivalent amount, with interest, less expenses.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against state officials responsible for implementing the Act. They argued that the statutory regime violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and various Ohio laws. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the escheatment of their funds, claiming they received insufficient notice and would suffer irreparable harm. The district court denied the request, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm, particularly since they could still claim the funds from the state after escheatment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm because they retained a statutory avenue to recover their funds with interest after escheatment and could seek a monetary judgment if their constitutional claims succeeded. The court further determined that the plaintiffs either had actual notice of their funds or failed to identify specific property at risk, so no likelihood of irreparable harm was shown. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. View "Bleick v. Maxfield" on Justia Law

Police responded to a domestic violence report in which a woman’s daughter informed emergency responders that her mother’s boyfriend had assaulted her mother and was armed with a gun. Officers were told the suspect’s name, his car model, and that he was armed. Upon arrival, the officers spoke with both the victim and her daughter, who confirmed the assault and that the suspect had threatened the victim with a gun, describing it as “small.” The suspect was seen leaving the apartment building, and despite a canine search and a pat-down after his detention near his orange Dodge, neither he nor the gun was initially located. A search of the car, using the suspect’s keys, revealed a pistol under the front passenger seat.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan reviewed the defendant’s motion to suppress the gun found in the vehicle, arguing that the warrantless search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, holding that officers had probable cause to believe evidence of a crime—a gun used in a reported assault—would be found in the defendant’s vehicle based on the information provided by witnesses and police observations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered whether officers had probable cause for the search under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The court held that the officers had a “fair probability” to believe the gun would be in the car, given the eyewitness reports, the absence of the gun on the suspect or in the immediate area, and the fact that the suspect was found in the vehicle. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, concluding the search was lawful under the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law