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

Defendant pled guilty to knowingly possessing 305 images and 56 videos of child pornography on his computer (18 U.S.C. 2522). Many of the images depicted 8- to 10-year-old girls being raped by adult men. The Sentencing Guidelines recommended 63 to 78 months' imprisonment. The probation officer recommended a sentence of 24 months, noting that defendant was 67 years old, had no prior convictions, had suffered two strokes within 11 years, and was to some extent a caretaker for his wife. The district court sentenced defendant to a single night of confinement in the courthouse lockup, plus 10 years' supervised release. The Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence as substantively unreasonable, finding that the court improperly rejected the relevant sentencing guideline. The court's determination that the guidelines were "seriously flawed" did not justify the departure. The court did not properly consider the relevant factors or the government's arguments.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113(a). The district court sentenced him to 168 months' imprisonment, applying a two-point enhancement under USSG 2B3.1(b)(4)(B),applicable where a person was physically restrained to facilitate commission of the offense, and a six-point enhancement under USSG 3A1.2(c)(1), because the offense involved an "official victim." The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Defendant's use of a pistol to force a victim into an office constituted restraint. His reckless act of ramming his vehicle into a police car justified the "official victim" enhancement.

Taxpayer took business and individual tax deductions for the cost of "Loss of Income" insurance policies. The policies were back-dated, had a high premium to coverage ratio, were described as tax-savings products, and allowed taxpayer access to and control over the funds. A significant part of the premium was invested for later distribution to the policy holder. He was convicted of: subscribing a false tax return, 26 U.S.C. 7206(1); attempting to evade taxes, 26 U.S.C. 7201; and conspiracy to defraud the government, 18 U.S.C. 371. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the government presented sufficient evidence of the crimes. The court rejected a challenge to prior bad acts evidence and an argument that the government was required by the nature of the charges to forgo charging him under the general crime of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. The district court properly ordered payment of restitution for the personal income taxes of his co-conspirator.

Defendant was convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), and of possession with intent to distribute oxycodone, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). His criminal history included two state felony convictions in 2000 for first degree wanton endangerment, and a state felony conviction in 2004 for first degree complicity to traffic in a controlled substance. The district court sentenced defendant as a career offender pursuant to USSG 4B1.1(a), The Sixth Circuit affirmed. holding that the Kentucky convictions for wanton endangerment qualified as crimes of violence. The court also rejected arguments under 21 U.S.C. 851, that the government was required to file an information giving defendant notice that the prior convictions would be used to enhance his sentence.

Plaintiff, Head of Reference and Library Instruction at a state university 2004-2007, was part of a committee to choose a book that would be assigned to all freshmen. He recommended a book that contains a chapter describing homosexuality as aberrant human behavior. An ensuing controversy, which came to the attention of the entire faculty, resulted in cross-claims of harassment. The charges against plaintiff were dismissed, but he took a leave of absence based on extreme emotional distress then filed law suits. He subsequently resigned. The district court rejected this suit, filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, and 1986. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. federal damages claims against state officials were barred because they were based on the same acts or omissions previously raised in the Court of Claims. There was no adverse employment action to support a First Amendment retaliation claim. There was no evidence of intolerable conditions or that the university intended that he resign to establish constructive discharge. Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the university's sexual harassment policy.

The debtors bought their house in 1994 and, after a Chapter 7 discharge in 2004, refinanced. The loan closed in California, although the house was in Michigan, and the debtors signed a note, but did not sign a mortgage. The loan was funded and assigned to appellant. A few months later, they filed a Chapter 13 petition and the lender produced a recorded mortgage, ostensibly signed by the debtors in Michigan. The Bankruptcy Court found that the signatures were forged. On remand from the district court, it imposed an equitable mortgage on the house. The district court reversed, finding the mortgage void ab initio. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court properly considered the issue, held that the mortgage was void, and declined to impose an equitable mortgage because the assignee is subject to the defense of unclean hands, as was the original lender.