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

Defendant, convicted of several felony offenses in state court and sentenced to a maximum term of 27 years, exhausted state court appeals and filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal district court five days after the one-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. 2254) had run. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim of equitable tolling. Although defendant proceeded pro se after his appellate attorney withdrew and did not turn over documents related to the case, and was limited to one law library visit per week, he was not diligent. His lack of access to the trial transcript and lack of notice of the nearly two-month gap between when he submitted his motion for a delayed appeal to the prison mailroom and when that motion was ultimately filed with the Ohio Supreme Court were "unfortunate" but did not excuse the delays.

From 2005 to 2008, debtor, the owner of Waffle House Ffranchises, periodically failed to make all federal income tax withholding, social security, and unemployment payments due to the IRS and to timely file returns. The IRS assessed penalties in excess of $1.5 million; debtor made payments of $637,000 toward the penalty. In 2009 a chapter 11 reorganization plan was confirmed; the business continued to operate until its assets were sold. In 2010 debtor sued the IRS under 11 U.S.C. 548, 550 and the Tennessee Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Tenn. Code Ann. 66-3-301, asserting that the penalty payments provided no value to debtor and were made at a time when the debtor was incurring debt beyond its ability to pay. The bankruptcy court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that the payments resulted in a dollar-for-dollar reduction of debtor's undisputed tax debt. Payment of a fine or penalty is not an avoidable transfer, regardless of whether the penalty is a noncompensatory penalty.

Plaintiff is a non-profit, member-owned, water company serving rural areas of Ross County, Ohio. To finance its system, plaintiff borrowed nearly $10.6 million from the USDA. The disputed area of the county includes properties served by the city and properties served by plaintiff. Each has objected to the other's extension of new lines to the area. The district court granted plaintiff summary judgment, finding that the company is protected under the Agriculture Act, 7 U.S.C. 1926(b)(2), based on its obligations under the USDA contract, had a legal right to serve the area under a contract with the county, and did not have unclean hands. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

When defendant was indicted in Tennessee in 2005 for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. 846, 841(b)(1)(A)) he was in custody in Georgia on unrelated charges. The government obtained writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, but because of superseding indictments, defendant's transfer to another county, and misplaced paperwork, defendant did not appear in Tennessee until August 2008. The district court rejected Sixth Amendment and Speedy Trial Act claims, but dismissed without prejudice under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act and FRCP 48(b). Defendant pled guilty to a new indictment and was sentenced to 110 months in prison. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for dismissal. The district court erred by finding that defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated; there was no basis for concluding that the government was less than grossly negligent and the court should have presumed prejudice, based on the length of the delay.

Defendant was convicted of intentional murder and of possession of a firearm at the time of the commission of a felony. At sentencing, counsel expressed that defendant, due to long term mental illness, was not responsible for his actions and needed extensive psychiatric treatment. The trial court imposed a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction and a two-year sentence for the firearm conviction. The court noted that a clinical report classified defendant as suffering from schizophrenia paranoid type in remission in an individual who displays passive-aggressive tendencies, mal-depression and non-compliance with medical treatment, but concluded that his mental issues did not rise to the level of useable defense. After exhausting state appeals, defendant petitioned for habeas corpus. The district court dismissed, denying a motion for equitable tolling of the one-year limitations period under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. 2254. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether the extraordinary circumstances of his mental illness prevented defendant from diligently pursuing his rights.

Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. After Ohio courts denied appellate and post-conviction relief, the federal district court denied all 47 claims of error in a petition for habeas corpus. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims that petitioner was denied a fair trial due to wrongful suppression of Brady material (inconsistent prior statements by witnesses); that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial by virtue of defense counsel's undisclosed conflict of interest and, in the penalty phase, because counsel failed to object to hearsay evidence and failed to adequately prepare and present mitigation evidence; and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal, because counsel failed to assert claims based on trial counsel's conflict of interest and wrongful admission of hearsay evidence at trial. The court found some claims procedurally defaulted and others not material.

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1) in exchange for dismissal of other counts. The Guidelines recommended a sentence of 262 to 327 months on the drug count (which carried a mandatory minimum of 120 months), and a 60-month mandatory-minimum sentence on the gun count, to run consecutively. The district court orally imposed a total sentence of 216 months. At a resentencing hearing, 18 days later, the court referred to the prosecution's previous indication that it had no problem with a mandatory-minimum sentence and imposed a total sentence of 180 months. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded for reimposition of the original sentence, citing FRCP 35, under which the district court lacked authority to alter the sentence after the passage of 14 days.

After receiving information from a confidential informant concerning cocaine sales, officers obtained a warrant that specified the apartment, the items to be searched for, and a description of a man known as "Little Toe." At the apartment they found drugs, a scale, cash, and two guns. Defendant signed a waiver, admitted to ownership, and, after unsuccessfully moving to suppress, entered a plea of guilty as a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. 922(g)). He was sentenced to six months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The warrant was valid; there was enough information to find probable cause. The informant had supplied accurate information in the past, stated that he had seen a drug sale at the apartment; only five days passed between the tip and the search.

Hit by a vehicle in 2004, plaintiff had medical bills of $82,036 that were paid in full by Medicare. The owner of the vehicle settled with plaintiff for $125,000. Medicare sought reimbursement of $62,338 under 42 U.S.C. 13955y(b)(2)(B)(i)., which plaintiff paid under protest. An ALJ rejected plaintiff's argument that an unknown motorist was responsible for 90 percent of the damage so that only 10 percent of the settlement was for medical expenses and the rest was for pain and suffering. The Medicare Appeals Council, district court, and Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that plaintiff presented no evidence of hardship.

Plaintiff was arrested for resisting arrest and was held overnight. Charges were later dropped. Plaintiff's account of the incident is very different from the description given by police. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims and on all constitutional claims against the city. The court denied summary judgment on a claim for excessive force under federal law and claims for assault and battery and gross negligence under state law and denied summary judgment motion on a claim under Michigan's Freedom of Information Act.. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider defendants' arguments regarding qualified immunity, which were based on contested facts. With respect to a claim of governmental immunity, the district court properly decided that there were issues of material fact on whether defendants' actions were objectively reasonable.