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

While released on bond for a burglary charge, the defendant evaded police during a traffic stop, abandoning his truck in a pond and fleeing on foot. The next day, officers returned and, after a series of encounters involving the defendant and his girlfriend, discovered multiple firearms and ammunition in a nearby SUV, to which the defendant later admitted ownership. Because he had a prior felony conviction, a grand jury indicted him for being a felon in possession of a firearm under federal law. The defendant entered into a plea agreement with the government, recommending certain offense levels and sentencing enhancements, but the agreement did not bind the district court.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky received a presentence report that calculated a higher base offense level than the plea agreement had contemplated, after discovering an additional prior controlled substance conviction. Both parties acknowledged the report’s accuracy at sentencing, though they advocated for a lower sentence in line with the plea agreement. The government also acknowledged the court’s independent authority to calculate the guidelines. Ultimately, the district court adopted the presentence report’s range and sentenced the defendant to 110 months, at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the government breached the plea agreement and whether the sentence was unreasonable. The court held that the government had not breached the plea agreement because the agreement allowed either party to argue for other guideline calculations, and the government did not recommend a higher sentence. The court also found that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable, as the district court considered the relevant statutory factors and the defendant’s history. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Messersmith" on Justia Law

In 1989, a man committed a brutal murder at a Kentucky laundromat, killing a 61-year-old employee after she asked him to leave. After his arrest, he was charged with several crimes, including murder. Five years later, he pleaded guilty to all charges. He sought to have a judge, rather than a jury, decide his sentence, hoping for a more favorable outcome due to the nature of his crimes. After a series of legal maneuvers and a failed attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, a judge ultimately sentenced him to death, despite the presentation of significant mitigating evidence about his abusive childhood and mental health struggles.On direct appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed both his conviction and sentence, rejecting his arguments that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the sentencing court had failed to consider all mitigating evidence. The court found that while the trial court’s plea colloquy did not specifically enumerate every right waived by pleading guilty, it was sufficient to show that the defendant understood the consequences. The court also concluded that the sentencing judge had considered all mitigating evidence, even if he found it unpersuasive.After exhausting state postconviction remedies, the petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, raising multiple grounds for relief. The district court denied relief and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a limited certificate and reviewed two claims de novo: whether the plea was knowing and voluntary, and whether the trial court failed to consider mitigating evidence.The Sixth Circuit held that the Kentucky Supreme Court had not unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in either respect. The record affirmatively demonstrated the petitioner’s understanding of his rights, and the sentencing court’s consideration of mitigation evidence was constitutionally adequate. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Johnson v. Plappert" on Justia Law

Two fourteen-year-old girls residing in a group home in Dayton, Ohio, contacted Kelly Richards, a man they knew as “Scorpio,” and asked him to pick them up. Richards transported the girls to his apartment in Cincinnati, where he facilitated their drug use, sexually assaulted them, and coerced them into prostitution over several days. He controlled their movements, threatened them with weapons, and advertised them online for sex. The girls eventually escaped, and authorities began an investigation that uncovered substantial evidence connecting Richards to their exploitation, including digital communications and photographs.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio reviewed the evidence and denied Richards’s suppression motion, finding probable cause supported the search warrants. Richards proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in convictions on two counts of sex trafficking minors, two counts of sexually exploiting children, and one count of possessing a firearm as a felon. He was sentenced to 480 months in prison and a life term of supervised release. Richards raised several legal challenges before and during trial, including claims regarding the Speedy Trial Act, search warrant validity, denial of self-representation, limits on cross-examination, and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that Richards’s trial occurred within the statutory and constitutional limits for a speedy trial, the search warrants were supported by probable cause and did not require a Franks hearing, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying mid-trial self-representation, and limiting cross-examination of the government’s agent did not violate Richards’s rights. The court also found Richards’s below-Guidelines sentence substantively reasonable and denied his motion to file a supplemental pro se brief. The judgment and sentence were affirmed. View "United States v. Richards" on Justia Law

A former elected county prosecutor in Kentucky’s 21st Judicial Circuit was charged with Honest Services Wire Fraud, violations of the Travel Act, and Federal Program Bribery. The charges stemmed from an arrangement with a young woman, M.H., who repeatedly faced legal troubles. Evidence showed that the prosecutor agreed to help her with matters such as getting warrants withdrawn, charges reduced, and release from jail, in exchange for sexual acts and explicit images. The FBI discovered the scheme, leading to federal prosecution. At trial, the government presented incriminating text messages, testimony from M.H., and law enforcement, while the defendant claimed he did not solicit images and that M.H. was assisting in investigations—a claim disproved by evidence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky oversaw the jury trial, which resulted in convictions on all counts. The court sentenced the defendant to 41 months in prison and imposed supervised release conditions, including refraining from excessive alcohol use. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the defendant challenged the exclusion of certain testimony about Kentucky law, sufficiency of the evidence on several elements, the federal funding nexus for the bribery charge, the supervised release condition, and the sentencing court’s refusal to consider “collateral consequences.”The Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or violate constitutional rights in excluding expert legal opinion testimony and that the jury was properly instructed on the meaning of “official acts.” The court found overwhelming evidence supporting the verdict, including proof of a quid pro quo and an interstate nexus. The federal funding requirement was satisfied by evidence that the state received sufficient funds. The supervised release condition and sentencing decisions were not plainly erroneous. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "United States v. Goldy" on Justia Law

Jason Florence, while on supervised release for a prior federal child pornography conviction, was found in possession of a smartphone containing child pornography during an unscheduled home visit by his probation officer. The conditions of his supervised release prohibited him from possessing such devices without his probation officer's knowledge. A forensic analysis of the confiscated phone revealed over one hundred images and two videos of child pornography, some accessed shortly before the search. Florence admitted ownership of the phone and provided its passcode, and other evidence linked him to the device and the illicit materials.This case was tried before the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The parties stipulated to Florence’s prior convictions and the terms of his supervised release. After a two-day trial, a jury convicted Florence of possessing child pornography and found that the material depicted minors under 12 years old. At sentencing, the district court determined that Florence’s prior conviction triggered a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2), and imposed a life term of supervised release. Florence objected, arguing that Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights required the jury to find the fact of his prior conviction, and he challenged the admission of his probation officer’s credibility testimony and the reasonableness of his sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not err in finding the fact of Florence’s prior conviction and applying the mandatory minimum, citing the narrow exception in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which allows a judge to find the fact of a prior conviction. The court found any error in admitting the probation officer’s credibility testimony harmless, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Finally, the Sixth Circuit held that the life term of supervised release was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Florence" on Justia Law

In this case, federal prosecutors charged several members of the Junk Yard Dogs, a Memphis-area gang affiliated with the Almighty Vice Lord Nation, with racketeering, murder, attempted murder, and firearms offenses stemming from a violent gang war in the summer of 2020. The indictment followed a spree of shootings that injured multiple people and left one dead. Of the fifteen indicted, most pled guilty, but Tomarcus Baskerville (gang leader), Thomas Smith (second-in-command), and Courtland Springfield (foot soldier) went to trial. Extensive evidence at trial included testimony from cooperating codefendants, phone records, and physical evidence linking the defendants to coordinated attacks against rival gangs.The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee presided over the trial. After lengthy deliberations, the jury convicted Baskerville, Smith, and Springfield on various racketeering and violent crime counts. There were challenges during deliberations related to suspected jury intimidation, but after polling jurors and interviewing the foreperson, the district court found the jury remained impartial and denied motions for mistrial. Springfield was acquitted of certain charges, and another defendant was acquitted entirely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the convictions and sentences. The court affirmed all convictions, finding the evidence sufficient and rejecting arguments for mistrial or the necessity of individual juror questioning. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in handling jury intimidation claims and properly admitted the government’s phone chart exhibits. However, consistent with the government’s concession, the Sixth Circuit vacated Smith’s sentence related to his firearm conviction and remanded for resentencing, ruling that the mandatory minimum sentence imposed exceeded what the jury’s findings supported under federal law. View "United States v. Baskerville" on Justia Law

On the evening of Black Friday in 2021, two employees at a T-Mobile store in Columbus, Ohio were robbed at gunpoint by a masked individual who forced them into a back room, demanded phones and money, and sprayed them with mace before fleeing. Unbeknownst to the robber, a bait phone with a GPS tracker was included among the stolen items, allowing police to quickly locate and apprehend him after a high-speed chase. The suspect, Kevin Daniels, was arrested and, after waiving his Miranda rights during interrogation, admitted to the crime. A search of his vehicle found the stolen goods, a gun, and the disguise used in the robbery.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio presided over Daniels’s trial. He was indicted on three counts: Hobbs Act robbery, brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and felon-in-possession of a firearm. After a jury convicted him on all counts, the district court calculated a sentencing guidelines range of 78 to 97 months for the robbery and possession offenses, and imposed the mandatory minimum 7-year sentence for the firearm offense, resulting in a total sentence of 181 months. Daniels raised various pretrial and sentencing challenges, including suppression of statements, issues with counsel, discovery violations, and objections to guideline enhancements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Daniels’s appeal, which included constitutional, evidentiary, instructional, and sentencing claims. The court held that Daniels knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying substitution of counsel, and that there was no reversible error related to discovery or jury instructions. The court also affirmed the application of the physical-restraint and bodily-injury enhancements, and found no error in the calculation of Daniels’s criminal history score. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Daniels" on Justia Law

In 2020, an activist named Sir Maejor Page created and operated a Facebook page for an organization called Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta (BLMGA), which he registered as a nonprofit in Georgia and obtained tax-exempt status. After failing to file required tax forms for three years, BLMGA’s tax-exempt status was revoked, but the organization continued to appear as a nonprofit on Facebook and receive donations. Following the death of George Floyd, donations surged to over $490,000. Page assured donors that the money would support protests and related activities, but he instead used the funds for personal expenses, including luxury items, a house, home renovations, firearms, and hiring a prostitute.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio indicted Page on one count of wire fraud and three counts of money laundering, alleging he defrauded donors by misrepresenting the intended use of their contributions. At trial, Page testified in his defense, but the jury found him guilty on all counts. During sentencing, the district court adopted the U.S. Probation Office’s recommendations, overruling Page’s objections regarding obstruction of justice, loss amount, and number of victims. The court imposed a sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, followed by three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Page’s convictions and sentence. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the wire fraud and money laundering convictions, finding Page’s misrepresentations induced donations and that the funds were used for personal benefit. The court also upheld the district court’s evidentiary rulings and sentencing enhancements, concluding there was no plain or prejudicial error. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Page’s convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Page" on Justia Law

Investigators from the DEA and Owensboro Police Department began an investigation in September 2021 into suspected methamphetamine trafficking involving Cedric Swanagan and Courtland Reed. Wiretap evidence, corroborated by intercepted communications and witness testimony, linked Swanagan and Reed to multiple drug transactions, including a key February 2022 incident where Reed paid Nicole Toliver for methamphetamine that was found in her car during a traffic stop. Both defendants were ultimately indicted for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute large quantities of methamphetamine.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky presided over the consolidated trial. Swanagan moved to suppress evidence from the wiretap, arguing the supporting affidavit contained intentional or reckless falsehoods, but the court denied his motion without a Franks hearing, finding no substantial preliminary showing of falsity. At trial, law enforcement officers testified about intercepted calls, interpreting slang and summarizing conversations. The district court managed objections to this testimony, ensuring officers spoke from personal experience and refrained from narrating facts beyond their direct knowledge. Reed was shackled during trial, but the court took steps to conceal this from the jury. After jurors potentially saw defendants in shackles in the courthouse lobby, the court conducted voir dire and found no actual prejudice. Both defendants were convicted, and the court denied motions for acquittal and new trial. Swanagan was sentenced to 360 months based on enhancements for his leadership in the conspiracy and prior convictions; Reed received a 300-month sentence based in part on a prior burglary conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and Swanagan’s sentence, finding no reversible error in evidentiary rulings, jury management, or sufficiency of the evidence. The court vacated Reed’s sentence, holding that his Kentucky burglary conviction did not qualify as a “serious violent felony” for sentence enhancement under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 851, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Reed" on Justia Law

In this case, Ricco Saine was approached by police in a motel parking lot after a BOLO alert indicated he was suspected of narcotics trafficking. Officers, believing the motel was a known drug location, called in a K9 unit, which alerted on Saine’s truck. A subsequent search uncovered a firearm and a small amount of a substance believed to be marijuana, though its identity was not confirmed. Weeks later, officers investigating at Saine’s home discovered additional firearms, some of which had been purchased by Saine’s wife, Tonya, with Saine present. Police later obtained a text exchange between Saine and Tonya, indicating she had his gun in their house.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied Saine’s motion to suppress the firearm found in his truck, rejecting his argument that the K9’s inability to distinguish between legal hemp and illegal marijuana invalidated probable cause for the search. At trial, the court also admitted the text exchange between Saine and Tonya, overruling Saine’s objections that it constituted inadmissible hearsay and impermissible propensity evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts of unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a K9 alert supplies probable cause for a vehicle search, even when the dog cannot distinguish between legal and illegal cannabis, as probable cause depends on probabilities, not certainties. The court also found that the admission of the text exchange was proper, as it was used to show Saine’s knowledge rather than propensity, and any prejudicial effect did not substantially outweigh its probative value. The court affirmed Saine’s conviction. View "United States v. Saine" on Justia Law