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

Taylor owned a convenience store. In 2008, the store received authorization to redeem benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a federally funded program providing nutritional assistance to needy individuals. In 2010-2011, the USDA conducted an undercover operation. Taylor allowed undercover police officers and confidential informants working under USDA special agents to redeem SNAP benefits for cash that Taylor knew would be used to purchase illegal drugs. Taylor once exchanged a firearm for SNAP benefits. Taylor pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the U.S., SNAP fraud, drug distribution, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Based on the firearm conviction and Taylor’s criminal history, the probation officer recommended an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), resulting in a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months. The district court sentenced Taylor to 188 months. Graves, a friend of Taylor’s, worked in the store and would stand outside the store and either sell drugs to people who redeemed benefits for cash or tell them where to find drugs. Graves also sold an informant a firearm and split the proceeds with Taylor’s wife. The district court sentenced Graves to 200 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Blizzard, born in 1951, was hired as a part-time clerk at MTC in 1992 and was promoted to in 1996. Blizzard’s supervisor, Nutter, began as MTC’s Controller in 2001. In 2005, MTC began installing a new management information system, overseen, in part, by Nutter. Blizzard experienced difficulty. MTC asserts that Blizzard resisted and fell behind in learning to use the new software. Blizzard contends that Nutter gave a co-worker special treatment, more opportunities for training, and sometimes required Blizzard to work extra hours so that the co-worker could attend training. In 2006 and 2007, Blizzard made several oral complaints to MTC. In 2006, Nutter evaluated Blizzard’s work as falling below expectations in several areas. Blizzard submitted a rebuttal. In 2008, Nutter wrote a memo, “Conduct of Peggy Blizzard,” which documented reasons for recommending termination. Blizzard, fired at age 57, filed a charge with the EEOC, claiming retaliation, age discrimination, and sex discrimination. In 2009, she filed a complaint against MTC and Nutter, asserting age discrimination and retaliation under the federal Age Discrimination Enforcement Act and Ohio law, as well as claims for “Breach of Policy” and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted MTC summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Blizzard v. Marion Tech. Coll." on Justia Law

Following a 2000 shooting death in Nashville, Robins was convicted of first-degree, premeditated murder in state trial court. The appellate court affirmed. Robins filed a habeas corpus petition, claiming ineffective assistance. The state trial court found that counsel’s representation was not deficient or prejudicial, and the state appellate court affirmed. Robins filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in the district court, which was amended and then dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Robins did not demonstrate that the state appellate court’s decision was unreasonable or improper under Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 deference. View "Robins v. Fortner" on Justia Law

An alleged methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution conspiracy in eastern Tennessee involved 49 indicted defendants, 21 U.S.C. 841(a), 846. Miller pleaded guilty and challenged her sentence. Beals and Ambrose were convicted and appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and that the district court improperly denied a pretrial suppression motion and mid-trial request for the government to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. The government challenged Ambrose’s 168-month sentence as unlawful in light of Abbott v.United States, 131 S. Ct. 18 (2010). The Seventh Circuit dismissed Miller’s appeal as waived by the plea agreement; affirmed Beals’s convictions; but vacated Ambrose’s sentence. Abbott covers Ambrose’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) and the district court erred in declining to impose a consecutive minimum sentence of five years for the conviction. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

Ohio requires that provisional ballots be cast in the correct precinct, with a completed voter affirmation, making no exception for wrong-precinct and deficient-affirmation ballots caused by poll-worker error, O.R.C. 3505.183(B)(4)(a)(ii)–(iii) and (B)(4)(b)(ii). A 2010 consent decree required the counting of certain wrong-precinct and deficient-affirmation provisional ballots where poll-worker error caused the nonconformity and the voters used the last four digits of their social security number for identification to cast their ballots. The ballot of a provisional voter using any other form of identification (e.g., current photo identification, current utility bill, paycheck) would not be counted.The district court denied a motion to vacate the decree and entered a preliminary injunction requiring the counting of all wrong-precinct and deficient-affirmation provisional ballots to remedy systemic exclusion of nonconforming ballots caused by poll-worker error. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the wrong-precinct remedy and reversed the deficient affirmation remedy and remanded for the district court to address the equal protection issue created by the consent decree’s provision for counting deficient-affirmation ballots by voters providing social security numbers, and a motion to modify the consent decree in light of the equal protection concerns raised by the consent decree’s differential treatment of provisional ballots. View "NE Coal. for the Homeless v. Husted" on Justia Law

Zobel engaged in sexually explicit online chats with numerous minor females from around the country. Zobel resided in Michigan, and a minor female, J.C., resided in Ohio. Zobel persuaded J.C. to perform oral sex on him. Zobel either knew that J.C. was under 16 years of age or recklessly disregarded her age. J.C. was 13 years old. J.C. informed Zobel that she and B.B., had run away from home. J.C. informed Zobel that B.B. was 14 years old; B.B. was actually 12 years old. Zobel drove to Ohio and took the girls to a parking garage, where they performed sexual acts and he took pictures. He pled guilty under 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) and the district court imposed a sentence of 150 months of imprisonment, a 15 month upward variance from the upper-end of the Guidelines range. The court imposed special conditions of supervised release for life, which prohibit Zobel from having contact with minors absent prior judicial approval, loitering in areas where children tend to congregate, and possessing or viewing pornography or materials that are “sexually explicit or suggestive.” The Sixth Circuit vacated the special condition that bans possessing or accessing “sexually suggestive” materials and affirmed the remainder of the sentence. View "United States v. Zobel" on Justia Law

A 1998 neighborhood shooting in Detroit resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male bystander and injury to two other bystanders, a 21-year-old male and a nine-year-old female. A year later, a Michigan state court convicted 22-year-old Blackmon of second-degree murder, using a firearm during the commission of a felony, and two assaults with intent to do great bodily harm. The court sentenced him to 40 to 60 years on the murder count, concurrent three-to-10 year terms on the assault counts, and a consecutive two-year term on the firearm count. Eleven years later, a federal district court on collateral review (28 U.S.C. 2254) held that Michigan had deprived Blackmon of a fair trial in violation of the Due Process Clause and granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus and told Michigan to retry him. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The prosecution’s elicitation of, and comment upon, testimony regarding Blackmon’s gang affiliation did not render his trial so unfair as to result in a denial of federal due process; it did not result in a decision that “involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” View "Blackmon v. Booker" on Justia Law

In July 2012, Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee, and the Ohio Democratic Party filed a complaint, alleging that Ohio Rev. Code 3509.03 was unconstitutional insofar as it imposed on non-military voters a deadline of 6:00 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day for in-person early voting. Military service associations were allowed to intervene. The district court entered a preliminary injunction, finding that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits. Neither of the state’s justifications was sufficient to justify the distinction imposed by the law. View "Obama for Am. v. Husted" on Justia Law

A dialysis provider created a wholly-owned subsidiary, RCGSC, which supplied dialysis equipment for home use, to take advantage of the Medicare reimbursement scheme and increase profits. In 2005 former employees filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-33, alleging that RCGSC was not a legitimate and independent durable medical equipment supply company, but a “billing conduit” used to unlawfully inflate Medicare reimbursements. The United States intervened and the relators’ claim was voluntarily dismissed. The government alleged that defendants submitted claims, knowing that RCGSC was a sham corporation created solely for increasing Medicare reimbursements; knowing that RCGSC was not in compliance with Medicare rules and regulations; knowing that RCGSC was misleading patients over their right to choose between Method I and Method II reimbursements; and for facility support charges for services rendered to home dialysis patients who had selected Method II reimbursements. The government also brought common law theories of payment by mistake and unjust enrichment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States. The Sixth Circuit reversed on all counts and remanded some. Defendants did not act with reckless disregard of the alleged falsity of their submissions to Medicare.View "United States v. Renal Care Grp., Inc." on Justia Law

Tasis and his brother ran a sham medical clinic, recruited homeless Medicare recipients who had tested positive for HIV, hepatitis or asthma, paid the “patients” small sums in exchange for their insurance identification, then billed Medicare for infusion therapies that were never provided. During four months in 2006, the Center billed Medicare $2,855,785 and received $827,000 in return. The scheme lasted 15 months, during which Tasis and his collaborators submitted $9,122,159.35 in Medicare claims. An auditor notified the FBI. After an investigation, prosecutors indicted Tasis on fraud and conspiracy claims. Over Tasis’s objection, co-conspirator Martinez testified that she and Tasis had orchestrated a a similar scam in Florida. The court instructed the jury to consider Martinez’s testimony about the Florida conspiracy only as it related to Tasis’s “intent, plan and knowledge.” The jury found Tasis guilty, and the trial judge sentenced him to 78 months in prison and required him to pay $6,079,445.93 in restitution. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting various challenges to evidentiary rulings. View "United States v. Tasis" on Justia Law