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

From 2016 to 2021, Irene Michelle Fike worked at an accounting firm and later as an independent contractor for a client, J.M., and J.M.'s family. Fike used her access to J.M.'s financial accounts to pay her personal credit card bills and make purchases from online retailers. She concealed her fraud by misrepresenting J.M.'s expenditures in financial reports. Fike defrauded J.M. of $363,657.67 between April 2018 and September 2022.Fike pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in 2024. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sentenced her to thirty-six months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The court also ordered her to pay $405,867.08 in restitution, which included the principal amount stolen and $42,209.41 in prejudgment interest. Fike appealed, arguing that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) does not authorize prejudgment interest and that the interest calculation was speculative.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the MVRA allows for prejudgment interest to ensure full compensation for the victim's losses. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest, as it was necessary to make J.M. whole. The court also determined that the district court had a sufficient basis for calculating the interest, relying on J.M.'s declaration of losses, which was submitted under penalty of perjury and provided a reliable basis for the award. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Fike" on Justia Law

Lavonce Makiri Smith was stopped by police in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and a gun was found in his pocket. Smith moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk him. The incident began when Detective Garza was involved in a car accident, and Lt. Jonathan Wu, who was also at the scene, noticed a silver Chrysler that matched a stolen vehicle report. The Chrysler circled the area multiple times, and Wu observed three young Black men, including Smith, walking towards his car from the direction of the Chrysler. Wu suspected they were associated with the stolen car and might be planning a carjacking or robbery.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan held an evidentiary hearing where Wu testified. The court found Wu's testimony credible and concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Smith. The court ruled that the stop was lawful due to the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and the frisk was justified based on the totality of the circumstances suggesting Smith was armed and dangerous. Smith entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the suppression decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. The court found that Wu's observations and the behavior of Smith and his companions, combined with the context of the stolen vehicle and the high-crime area, provided a particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity. The court also rejected Smith's arguments challenging the district court's factual findings and application of the law, concluding that the totality of the circumstances justified the stop and frisk. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, a group of consumers, filed a lawsuit against General Motors (GM) and Robert Bosch LLC, alleging that the companies misled consumers about the emissions produced by certain Chevrolet Cruze vehicles. They claimed that the vehicles emitted higher levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) than advertised and that the emissions control systems were manipulated to pass regulatory tests. The plaintiffs sought damages under various state fraud laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan initially dismissed some of the plaintiffs' claims, ruling that those based on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards were preempted by the Clean Air Act. The court allowed other claims to proceed, particularly those alleging that GM's advertising misled consumers about the vehicles' emissions. However, after the Sixth Circuit's decision in a similar case (In re Ford Motor Company F-150 and Ranger Truck Fuel Economy Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation), the district court revisited its decision and dismissed the remaining fraud claims, concluding they were preempted by federal law. The court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the RICO claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court should determine whether the plaintiffs' remaining claims could proceed without relying on a disagreement with the EPA's determinations. The court remanded the case for the district court to decide if the claims were preempted under the analysis described. The court affirmed the dismissal of the RICO claims and the denial of the plaintiffs' post-judgment motion to vacate the judgment in part and approve a preliminary settlement agreement. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Counts v. General Motors, LLC" on Justia Law

Detectives from the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department observed Edwin Santiago arriving at a car dealership in a vehicle emitting a strong odor of marijuana. Santiago exited the car, and the detectives noticed a pistol on his waistband. Suspecting Santiago of possessing a firearm while under the influence of marijuana, the detectives detained him. During the detention, they discovered Santiago was a felon, leading to his arrest and subsequent indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee held a suppression hearing where the detectives and a witness testified about the marijuana odor. The court found the detectives' testimony credible and ruled that the odor provided reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the arrest. Consequently, the court denied Santiago's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the arrest. Santiago, representing himself at trial, was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 56 months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Santiago's appeal, which challenged the denial of his motion to suppress and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the smell of marijuana provided reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the arrest. The court also found Santiago's within-Guidelines sentence to be substantively reasonable, considering his criminal history and the circumstances of the offense. Santiago's additional pro se claims were not considered, as he was represented by counsel on appeal. View "United States v. Santiago" on Justia Law

Tracey Shaw was indicted in January 2023 for knowingly possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Shaw pleaded guilty and, as part of his plea agreement, waived his right to appeal any sentence within the applicable guideline range. At the sentencing hearing, the district court determined Shaw’s guideline range to be 87 to 108 months and sentenced him to 92 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The court did not make a recommendation about substance-abuse treatment during incarceration but left it to the Bureau of Prisons. For supervised release, the court stated that Shaw might be required to participate in substance-abuse treatment if directed by the probation office.The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee issued a written judgment stating that Shaw must participate in substance-abuse testing and treatment as directed by the probation officer. Shaw appealed, arguing that the written judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement, which he interpreted as delegating the decision to the probation office.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Shaw’s appeal was not barred by his plea agreement’s appeal waiver because he was challenging the written judgment, not the sentence itself. The court found that the oral sentence was ambiguous regarding the substance-abuse treatment condition. The written judgment clarified this ambiguity by specifying that Shaw must participate in substance-abuse treatment as directed by the probation officer. The court concluded that this language met constitutional requirements by mandating treatment while allowing the probation officer to handle the details. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s written judgment. View "United States v. Shaw" on Justia Law

Leonel Hinojosa was originally sentenced to 240 months in prison for shooting a man during a robbery. The sentence was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit because it was unclear whether the district court properly used one of Hinojosa’s prior convictions to calculate his guidelines range. The court could only rely on this prior conviction if it resulted in Hinojosa’s incarceration during any time in the 15 years before he committed his current offenses.On remand, the government presented additional evidence about Hinojosa’s criminal history. The district court found that the prior conviction met the guideline’s standards for inclusion in the criminal history score. This resulted in a guidelines range of 120 to 150 months for his robbery and felon-in-possession offenses, plus a consecutive 120-month minimum sentence for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. The district court reimposed the same 240-month sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the “but for” causal connection between the prior conviction and the extra incarceration satisfied the guideline’s “resulted in” language. The court also found that the district court reasonably sentenced Hinojosa to 240 months due to his history of violence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the sentence, rejecting Hinojosa’s procedural and substantive challenges. The court concluded that the district court properly calculated the guidelines range and reasonably balanced the sentencing factors, including the seriousness of the offense and Hinojosa’s history of violent behavior. View "United States v. Hinojosa" on Justia Law

In this case, Kelli Prather was convicted by a jury of bank fraud, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and making a false statement on a loan application. The charges stemmed from her fraudulent applications for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) funds under the CARES Act, which were intended to provide financial relief during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prather submitted multiple fraudulent loan applications for non-operational businesses and used the identity of her mentally disabled nephew, D.P., to apply for additional loans.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio sentenced Prather to 84 months in prison. Prather appealed her conviction and sentence, arguing insufficient evidence for her aggravated identity theft conviction, improper admission of certain testimonies, and errors in the jury instructions and sentencing enhancements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that there was ample evidence to support Prather's aggravated identity theft conviction, including testimony that D.P. did not understand the loan application process and that Prather used his identity without lawful authority. The court also determined that the testimonies of Special Agent Reier and Prather's ex-fiancé, Darrell Willis, did not constitute plain error and were cumulative of other evidence presented at trial.Regarding the jury instructions, the court held that the district court correctly informed the jury that Prather did not need to know the interstate nature of her acts to be convicted of wire fraud. Finally, the court upheld the district court's application of the vulnerable victim enhancement, finding that D.P. was indeed a victim of Prather's fraudulent scheme.The Sixth Circuit affirmed Prather's conviction and sentence, concluding that there were no reversible errors in the district court's proceedings. View "United States v. Prather" on Justia Law

Jermaine Kimbrough pleaded guilty in 2022 to four criminal offenses related to carjacking and firearms. At sentencing, the district court determined that Kimbrough had three prior violent felonies committed on different occasions, making him subject to an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). This enhancement increased his statutory penalty range for being a felon in possession of a firearm from a maximum of 10 years to a minimum of 15 years.The district court, following then-controlling Sixth Circuit precedent, decided that Kimbrough's two 2016 aggravated burglary offenses occurred on different occasions, thus applying the ACCA enhancement. Kimbrough objected, arguing that a jury should make this determination. The district court overruled his objection and sentenced him to 148 months for Counts One, Two, and Four, to be served concurrently, and 84 months for Count Three, to be served consecutively.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v. United States established that it is an error for a judge, rather than a jury, to determine whether prior offenses occurred on different occasions for ACCA purposes. The Sixth Circuit found that this error was not harmless in Kimbrough's case. The court noted that a reasonable jury could find that Kimbrough's two 2016 burglaries were part of a single criminal event, given their close proximity and similar nature.The Sixth Circuit vacated Kimbrough's sentence on Counts One, Two, and Four and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court also noted that the sentence for Count One exceeded the statutory maximum and must be corrected on remand. Additionally, the court left Kimbrough's Double Jeopardy argument for the district court to address if the government seeks an ACCA-enhanced sentence on remand. View "United States v. Kimbrough" on Justia Law

Federal and local law enforcement officers in Toledo, Ohio, uncovered a large-scale drug distribution scheme involving cocaine, cocaine base, and fentanyl. Christopher Simpson, Marquise Figures, and Antuan Wynn were charged with various federal crimes related to this scheme. They were tried together, and the jury found them guilty on all charges except one against Wynn.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio sentenced Simpson to 300 months, Wynn to 224 months, and Figures to 70 months. All three defendants appealed their convictions and sentences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. Simpson challenged the seizure and search of a vehicle, arguing Fourth Amendment violations, but the court found the actions lawful. Simpson also contested his sentence, particularly the drug quantity calculation and an obstruction of justice enhancement, but the court upheld the district court's findings.Figures argued that evidence from a traffic stop was improperly admitted and that there was insufficient evidence for his conspiracy conviction. The court found the evidence intrinsic to the charged conspiracy and sufficient to support the conviction. Figures also challenged his sentence, but the court found no error in the drug quantity calculation or the denial of a minor participant reduction.Wynn contended there was a variance between the indictment and the trial evidence, but the court found no prejudicial variance. He also challenged a jury instruction and the admission of pre-conspiracy evidence, but the court found no error. Wynn's sentence challenges, including the drug quantity calculation and enhancements for firearm possession and maintaining a drug premises, were also rejected.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgments of the district court for all three defendants. View "United States v. Simpson" on Justia Law

Malgum Whiteside, Jr. was charged with being a felon in possession of firearms after police found the weapons during a search of his residence. The search was conducted while officers were looking for evidence related to stalking charges against Whiteside. Whiteside moved to suppress the firearms, arguing that the search warrant was invalid and no warrant exception applied. The district court denied the motion, and Whiteside pleaded guilty while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Whiteside's motion to suppress, finding that the warrant was valid despite the judge not signing the warrant itself, only the affidavit. The court also found that there was a sufficient nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence sought. Additionally, the court ruled that even if the warrant was invalid, the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement would apply, and the firearms were in plain view.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the warrant was validly issued despite the lack of a signature on the warrant itself, as there was clear and contemporaneous evidence that the judge made the necessary probable cause determination. The court also found that the warrant affidavit established a sufficient nexus between Whiteside's residence and the evidence of stalking. Furthermore, the court concluded that the plain-view doctrine applied to the seizure of the firearms, as the incriminating character of the firearms was immediately apparent to the officers, who knew Whiteside was a felon. Therefore, the seizure of the firearms was valid, and the district court's denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed. View "United States v. Whiteside" on Justia Law