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

An elected county commissioner was arrested during a public board meeting after she repeatedly interrupted the reading of a letter that criticized her prior statements about alleged inmate mistreatment in the county jail. The commissioner, known for her confrontational stance toward her fellow commissioners and county officials, objected to the letter being read without prior notice and continued to speak over the clerk despite warnings and calls to order from her colleagues. Two sheriff’s deputies present as security arrested her for disrupting a lawful meeting under an Ohio statute. She was processed and released the same day, and the criminal complaint was later dismissed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted partial summary judgment in favor of the commissioner on her federal claims for First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure, and denied qualified immunity and statutory immunity to the defendants on these claims and related state-law claims for false arrest and civil conspiracy. The defendants, including the deputies, fellow commissioners, and sheriff, appealed the denial of immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the deputies had probable cause to arrest the commissioner for disrupting the meeting, and thus all defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim. The court also concluded that only the deputies were personally involved in the arrest for purposes of individual First Amendment liability and that the presence of probable cause generally precluded the First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, but remanded for the district court to consider whether exceptions to this rule applied. Regarding the state-law claims, the court affirmed the denial of statutory immunity, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants acted in bad faith by allegedly conspiring to arrest the commissioner in retaliation for her speech. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Frenchko v. Monroe" on Justia Law

A 20-year-old man with autism developed a sexual relationship with a 12-year-old girl he met online. Although the girl claimed to be thirteen, she was in fact younger. Their conversations became sexual, and at the man’s request, the girl sent him nude and sexually explicit photos and videos. In one video, she, who was pubescent, is depicted inserting a marker into her vagina at his suggestion. Law enforcement intervened after the girl reported him, leading to his arrest when he arrived at a hotel believing he would meet her for sex.A grand jury indicted the defendant on several sex-related offenses. He pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, enticing a minor, and attempting to transfer obscene material to a minor. The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, in calculating the sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines, applied a four-level enhancement for material depicting “sadistic or masochistic conduct,” based on the video of the girl’s self-penetration. The court relied on prior Sixth Circuit precedent, particularly United States v. Preston, to apply this enhancement, treating penetration with a foreign object as per se sadistic. The court sentenced the defendant to 226 months’ imprisonment after some downward variance for his immaturity and autism.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the sentence. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred by applying a categorical rule that all foreign-object penetration by a pubescent minor is per se sadistic. The appellate court clarified that for pubescent minors, the sadism enhancement requires an objective finding, based on the content of the material, of visible physical pain, emotional suffering, or humiliation—not simply penetration. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing under the correct legal standard. View "United States v. Vowels-Harper" on Justia Law

Two healthcare professionals operated a clinic specializing in pain management in Kentucky. One owned and managed the clinic, while the other served as its medical director. Together, they implemented a scheme to maximize profits by routinely ordering and billing insurers for both basic and more expensive, specialized urine drug tests for patients, regardless of actual medical need. The clinic eventually acquired in-house testing equipment to further increase billing. Staff raised concerns about the medical necessity of the tests and the reliability of the equipment, but the practice continued. The clinic also billed for tests conducted on malfunctioning equipment and for tests whose results could not be used for patient care due to processing delays.A grand jury indicted both individuals for conspiracy to commit health care fraud, substantive health care fraud, and (for one defendant) unlawful distribution of controlled substances. Both defendants went to trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The jury convicted one defendant of health care fraud, and the other of both health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud. After denying post-trial motions for acquittal and new trial, the district court sentenced both to below-Guidelines imprisonment terms, after calculating loss amounts based on insurer payments for unnecessary testing, with a discount for tests likely to have been medically necessary.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the convictions and sentences. The court held there was sufficient evidence to support both defendants’ convictions, upheld the district court’s evidentiary rulings (including admission of propensity and patient death evidence with limiting instructions), found no variance between the indictment and proof at trial, and determined that one defendant’s conflict-of-interest waiver was valid. The court also affirmed the district court’s methodology for estimating loss amounts for sentencing and restitution. The Sixth Circuit affirmed all convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Siefert" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioner was convicted by a Michigan state jury of first-degree murder, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and felony firearm. The homicide occurred in a Detroit neighborhood known for drug trafficking, where the victim was found with multiple gunshot wounds and no physical evidence tying any individual to the crime. Two witnesses, both local drug dealers, initially denied knowledge of the shooting but later identified the petitioner as the shooter after being arrested on unrelated charges. Their trial testimony was the primary evidence against the petitioner, as there was no physical evidence or eyewitness identification from the scene.Following his conviction, the petitioner pursued direct appeals and post-conviction relief through the Michigan courts, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. Those efforts were unsuccessful. He then filed a federal habeas petition, which was denied. Years later, he sought state court relief again, now relying on an affidavit from another individual who claimed to have witnessed the murder and identified a different perpetrator. The state trial court rejected this new evidence as unreliable and insufficient to overcome procedural barriers, and subsequent appeals in the state courts were denied. The petitioner returned to federal court with a second habeas petition, presenting affidavits including recantations and new claims of innocence. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the petition, finding it untimely and failing to meet the stringent requirements for successive habeas petitions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. It agreed that the petitioner did not satisfy the gatekeeping requirements for successive petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B), nor did he establish grounds for equitable tolling based on actual innocence. The Sixth Circuit held that the new affidavits presented were unreliable and would not clearly and convincingly prevent any reasonable juror from convicting the petitioner. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the habeas petition. View "Houston v. Tanner" on Justia Law

Four individuals established two illegal gambling businesses in northern Ohio, operating gaming rooms that paid out winnings in cash. To avoid detection, the true owners concealed their involvement by using nominal owners and destroyed financial records. The businesses operated almost entirely in cash, allowing the owners to hide profits and evade taxes. One of the defendants, an accountant, played a central role in managing finances and preparing false tax returns for the group. The scheme also involved efforts to launder money and shield assets from IRS collection, including the use of shell companies and deceptive real estate transactions.After law enforcement executed multiple search warrants in 2018, a grand jury indicted several participants on conspiracy, illegal gambling, tax evasion, and related charges. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied motions to dismiss and to sever the trials. At trial, a jury convicted two defendants on nearly all counts. At sentencing, the court calculated tax losses exceeding $3.5 million for each defendant, resulting in lengthy prison terms and substantial restitution orders. Both defendants challenged the loss calculations, the denial of severance, jury instructions, and other procedural aspects.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 denying severance, as no compelling prejudice was shown. The court found no error in the denial of the motion to dismiss the tax evasion count, concluding that affirmative acts of evasion within the limitations period were sufficiently alleged. The appellate court also upheld the district court’s tax loss calculations, the application of the sophisticated means enhancement, and the handling of jury instructions. The sentences were affirmed, but the case was remanded for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error in the judgment regarding restitution interest. View "United States v. DiPietro" on Justia Law

California Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc., an Ohio rehabilitation center, and its owner, Sebastian Rucci, became the subjects of a federal criminal investigation in 2021. Pursuant to ex parte warrants issued by a magistrate judge, the FBI seized $603,902.89 from their accounts. Shortly thereafter, state agencies revoked the facility’s provider certification and terminated its Medicaid agreement. The plaintiffs filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, seeking the return of the seized funds and disclosure of the affidavits used to obtain the warrants, alleging constitutional defects and asserting a right to inspect the affidavits under the Fourth Amendment.The Government moved to stay the civil action, indicating its intent to pursue a civil forfeiture proceeding regarding the seized funds. After initiating the forfeiture case, the Government moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ civil action, arguing that the statutory forfeiture process provided the appropriate remedy. The district court stayed the civil action pending resolution of the forfeiture case. In September 2024, the Government voluntarily dismissed the forfeiture proceeding and returned the funds with interest to the plaintiffs. The district court then ordered the plaintiffs to show cause why the civil action should not be dismissed as moot. Despite the plaintiffs’ argument that their claim for disclosure of the warrant affidavits remained unresolved, the district court dismissed the entire action as moot, reasoning that the plaintiffs had received the relief sought.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that, while the claim for return of funds was moot, the claim for disclosure of the warrant affidavits was not. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal of the affidavit disclosure claim and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the existence of a live controversy over the disclosure request precluded dismissal for mootness. View "California Palms v. United States" on Justia Law

After pleading guilty to federal drug-distribution conspiracy charges in 2012, the defendant was sentenced to ten years in prison followed by eight years of supervised release. He began his supervised release in 2019. In 2022, while still under supervision, he shot and killed a man outside a convenience store, an act captured on security video. He subsequently pled guilty to murder in state court. This new criminal conduct constituted a violation of the conditions of his federal supervised release.Following the murder conviction, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan revoked the defendant’s supervised release. At the revocation hearing, the court considered the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, which recommended a range of 51 to 63 months, but imposed the statutory maximum of 60 months’ imprisonment. The court ordered this sentence to run consecutively to the defendant’s state sentence. The defendant objected to both the length of the federal sentence and the decision to run it consecutively, but did not object to the court’s consideration of the seriousness of the supervised-release violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Applying plain-error review to the procedural challenge, the court held that the district court did not treat the seriousness of the supervised-release violation as a mandatory factor, but permissibly considered it as a breach of trust. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, noting that the district court considered multiple relevant factors and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Patterson" on Justia Law

The defendant, a long-time drug trafficker, was convicted for conspiring to distribute oxycodone in rural Appalachian communities. His criminal history included two prior drug distribution convictions, and he was previously sentenced as a career offender, resulting in a lengthy prison term, supervised release, and a fine. After a series of unsuccessful post-trial motions and appeals, a change in Sixth Circuit law regarding the definition of a “career offender” under the Sentencing Guidelines made him eligible for resentencing. At resentencing, the defendant presented evidence of rehabilitation and mitigating personal history, and requested a sentence within the recalculated, lower Guidelines range.Previously, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky had sentenced the defendant above the Guidelines range, citing his recidivism and lack of remorse. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed both the conviction and sentence. However, after the Sixth Circuit’s en banc decision in United States v. Havis, which narrowed the definition of a “controlled substance offense,” the defendant successfully moved for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, leading to resentencing without the career offender enhancement. At resentencing, the district court imposed a sentence at the top of the new Guidelines range, reduced the term of supervised release, and reimposed the fine.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not err in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, in its consideration of sentencing disparities, or in its treatment of mitigating evidence. The appellate court also found no plain error in the imposition of supervised release conditions. The sentence was affirmed, but the case was remanded to the district court for consideration of a retroactive sentencing amendment (Amendment 821). The request for reassignment to a different judge was denied. View "United States v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Eskender Getachew, a medical doctor in Columbus, Ohio, operated a clinic treating patients with opioid addiction. The government alleged that Dr. Getachew unlawfully prescribed controlled substances, particularly Subutex, at rates far exceeding medical norms, often without verifying patients’ claimed allergies to naloxone. Evidence at trial included testimony from an undercover officer, clinic staff, and an expert who identified repeated deviations from accepted medical practice, such as prescribing drugs without documented need and ignoring signs of drug diversion. The jury found Dr. Getachew guilty on eleven counts of unlawful distribution of controlled substances and not guilty on four counts.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio presided over the trial. After conviction, Dr. Getachew was sentenced to concurrent six-month terms and three years of supervised release. He moved for a new trial, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and requested an evidentiary hearing, which the district court denied. Dr. Getachew appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the deliberate-ignorance jury instruction, the content of that instruction, his absence at the return of the verdict, and the denial of an evidentiary hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Dr. Getachew knowingly issued unauthorized prescriptions. It found no plain error in the deliberate-ignorance instruction or its content. The court determined that Dr. Getachew’s absence at the verdict’s return did not affect his substantial rights and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on the new trial motion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Getachew" on Justia Law

Benjamin Carpenter was accused of providing translation and related services to ISIS, a designated foreign terrorist organization. He founded Ahlud-Tawhid Publications (ATP), which translated and published ISIS propaganda in multiple languages. Carpenter personally translated ISIS materials into English, wrote original content, and managed an ATP group on Telegram, where he coordinated translation projects. An undercover FBI agent, posing as an ISIS affiliate, joined the group and interacted with Carpenter, who recommended and facilitated the translation of ISIS propaganda videos at the agent’s request. Carpenter was arrested before completing a second translation assignment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee charged Carpenter with attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. After a five-day trial, a jury convicted him, and the district court sentenced him to 240 months in prison. Carpenter appealed, challenging the statute’s application to his conduct, evidentiary rulings, a protective order allowing an FBI agent to use a pseudonym, jury instructions, and the reasonableness of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Carpenter’s arguments and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that translation services constitute “material support” as a “service” under the statute, consistent with Supreme Court precedent. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s evidentiary rulings, including the admission of evidence related to Carpenter’s involvement with ATP and ISIS, the use of a pseudonym for the FBI agent, and the denial of Carpenter’s proposed jury instructions. The court also upheld the application of the terrorism sentencing enhancement and found the sentence both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "United States v. Carpenter" on Justia Law