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

The Richland County Sheriff’s Office launched Operation Turnaround after a 2004 drug-related death and recruited Bray as a confidential informant to make undercover buys from suspected drug traffickers. DEA Agents joined the investigation and registered Bray as a DEA informant. On the basis of Bray’s controlled buys, they arrested and charged more than 20 individuals, including Webb and Price, with violating federal criminal drug laws. Later, Bray, in jail for an unrelated drug-related killing, disclosed that Lucas conspired with him to frame innocent individuals, including Webb and Price. The Department of Justice discovered that several targets, including Webb and Price, did not participate in the charged drug deals. Bray had used stand-ins to participate in the drug deals and then falsely identified each. Bray later testified that he acted on his own, but the government concluded that law-enforcement supported Bray’s false identifications by knowingly making false reports and testimony and by covering up. The district court dismissed civil rights claims by Webb and Price. The Sixth Circuit reversed a decision that Price lacked standing because he had pleaded guilty to other drug crimes and dismissal of specific malicious-prosecution, false-arrest, fabrication-of-evidence, and federal conspiracy claims. False-arrest and trespass claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act are time barred, but the court remanded state-law and remaining FTCA claims. View "Price v. Lucas" on Justia Law

Jerry and Linda’s niece, Whitney, often stayed overnight with them and accompanied them on camping trips. When Whitney was 12 years old, the couple divorced. Linda told Whitney’s parents that Linda’s daughter-in-law had accused Jerry of making sexual advances and that Linda was concerned about Whitney. Questioned, Whitney said that Jerry had done something to her. At retrial, Whitney testified about sexual touching and remembered that Jerry exposed himself in front of her. Linda admitted she had never seen Jerry act inappropriately toward Whitney. Andrea testified that she spent the night at Jerry’s home, that Jerry came into her room at night, and exposed himself and touched her. Andrea acknowledged inconsistencies in her testimony between the two trials but explained that she had tried to forget the experience. Jerry denied the accusations. The prosecutor and defense counsel fought openly, often making side comments. Jerry was convicted of two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct but not guilty of assault with intent to commit second-degree criminal sexual conduct. His conviction was affirmed; Michigan courts also rejected his collateral attack. Jerry filed an unsuccessful habeas petition. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims concerning suppressed evidence consisting of a police report with notes from Andrea’s interview and hand-written notes from Andrea’s therapist that would have demonstrated inconsistencies in Andrea’s testimony. Jerry did not establish that the state court’s resolution of his prosecutorial misconduct claims was an unreasonable application of federal law. View "Bales v. Bell" on Justia Law

Abbring pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2)(A). The district court enhanced his advisory sentencing range because he distributed the pornography using peer-to-peer file-sharing software, resulting in a 151-to-188- month advisory guidelines range. The court imposed a sentence of 132 months.. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Over a six-year span, he had downloaded more than 450 videos and nearly 1,000 photos of child pornography through a peer-to-peer file-sharing program called Ares. Ares permits users to download and view files stored on other users’ computers in their shared folders. It does not allow users to disable the automatic-sharing feature. All it permits users to do is to move files out of the program’s shared folders once the user finishes downloading the relevant file. Users thus may not remove a file from their shared folder while they download it. Because Abbring continued sharing files while he downloaded them— allowing undercover agents to obtain portions of several videos—the district court correctly concluded that his use of Ares constituted “distribution” within the meaning of the federal sentencing guidelines, U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3). The court correctly denied a two-level reduction under 2G2.2(b)(1) for conduct “limited to . . . receipt or solicitation.” View "United States v. Abbring" on Justia Law

McGowan is a Michigan prisoner, serving a sentence of 195-480 months for drug trafficking and firearms offenses, and a 24-month sentence for a felony firearm offense. The district court ordered habeas relief, finding that McGowan received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. The state appealed, arguing that court failed to give required deference to the contrary ruling of the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit agreed and vacated. McGowan said he understood when he rejected the prosecution’s pre-trial offer; the trial court later rejected McGowan’s assertion that he was led to believe the estimated 45-to-93-month range would apply even if the jury found him guilty on all counts, not just if he accepted the offer. McGowan’s supposed misunderstanding is directly contrary to what his counsel told him on the record. The Michigan Court of Appeals’ affirmance was duly explained and has not been shown to be based on an unreasonable determination of facts or on an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The district court erroneously concluded that prejudice was established by the simple fact that McGowan received a more severe sentence as a result of the verdict than he would have received had he pled guilty. View "McGowan v. Burt" on Justia Law

Reed, a marketing guru who sold an “antioxidant rich whole food puree,” “ViaViente,”offered training on how to replicate his success as a “self-made millionaire.” When Reed’s relationship with ViaViente ended, he tried something new, telling potential investors that he had access to a secret site in the Philippines containing gold bars buried by the Japanese during World War II. Reed raised $1.3 million, but never excavated. He spent the money on houses, cars, and cosmetic surgery. He did buy a $30,000 a gold “scanner.” When Reed’s deception was exposed, he pled guilty to wire fraud; the prosecution agreed to make a recommendation that Reed receive a three-year sentence and not to oppose Reed’s request for credit for accepting responsibility. In its sentencing memorandum and at the hearing, the government stated that Reed should receive the credit, but did not mention an appropriate sentence. The court acknowledged that the “government has agreed pursuant to the plea agreement to recommend a three-year term of custody.” Reed objected that the prosecutor had “never once recommended the three-year sentence.” The court rejected that claim and ruled that Reed should not receive credit for accepting responsibility because he continued to promote the validity of his schemes. The court sentenced Reed to over seven years. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the government honored the plea agreement. View "United States v. Reed" on Justia Law

Johnson, a former Metropolitan Nashville Police officer, Department, was twice arrested based on domestic violence complaints by his now-estranged wife, Terri. The second arrest was made, pursuant to warrant, by fellow officers Moseley and Thomas. Johnson was acquitted and filed suit against his estranged wife, Moseley and Thomas, and the Metropolitan Government, alleging civil rights violations based on false arrest and malicious prosecution, and state law claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed in part, but denied the officers’ motion as to claims for malicious prosecution. The malicious prosecution claim was based on allegations that Terri’s medical records contained information inconsistent with details in her domestic violence accusations, and cites police department policies that, if heeded by officers conducting a proper investigation, would have disclosed reasons to question the veracity of her accusations and question whether there was probable cause to prosecute Johnson. The Sixth Circuit reversed, referring to an "overly charitable" reading of the complaint. The claim is barred by qualified immunity because plaintiff’s complaint does not include fact allegations of specific conduct plausibly making out a violation of clearly established federal law. View "Johnson v. Moseley" on Justia Law

After King, a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) inmate, participated in a class-action lawsuit challenging personal property policies at MDOC facilities (Cain litigation), prison officials transferred him to a prison with a higher security classification and more restrictive conditions. King filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Sixth Circuit held that prison officials were liable for retaliating against King for his First Amendment-protected conduct, participating in the Cain litigation and assisting other petitioners to file grievances. On remand, the district court granted compensatory damages and awarded attorney fees, but denied punitive damages and injunctive relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of injunctive relief and the award of punitive damages, but otherwise vacated and remanded, first holding that 42 U.S.C. 1997e(e), the Prison Litigation Reform Act, does not foreclose claims that allege violations of First Amendment-protected rights as injuries, even if those violations did not cause physical harm. The district court properly applied the PLRA to calculate the appropriate award of attorney fees, but abused its discretion in denying punitive damages and misapplied the PLRA’s attorney fees provision when it failed to charge a portion of the attorney fees against King’s judgment. View "King v. Zamiara" on Justia Law

Iraq native al-Maliki became a United States citizen, but visited his children, ages 12 and three, in Syria. He was charged under 18 U.S.C. 2423(c) and (e), which at the time, punished any U.S. citizen who traveled in foreign commerce, and engaged in any illicit sexual conduct, which included noncommercial sexual acts with a minor, or any attempts to do the same. Al-Maliki denied all of the charges, and a trial began. A court-ordered psychological evaluation, deemed al-Maliki “manipulative and dishonest” and assessed his “risk for future sexual acting out” as “moderate to high.” He was convicted. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, characterizing his challenge to the statute as exceeding Congress’s authority under the Foreign Commerce Clause, a “close call.” The court applied plain error review and found the law not “obviously” unconstitutional. View "United States v. al-Maliki" on Justia Law

Federal agents executed a search warrant on Pirosko’s hotel room and seized a laptop computer and a USB drive. Analysis revealed numerous images and video files depicting child pornography on both. Charged with knowingly receiving and distributing computer files containing visual depictions of real minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2), and knowingly possessing a computer and a USB storage device containing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B), Pirosko moved to compel the government to disclose the tools and records used to search the computer equipment. The court denied the motion, citing the sensitive nature of the computer programs and Pirosko’s lack of a demonstrated need for discovery. Pirosko then unsuccessfully moved to suppress, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the search warrant was obtained using unreliable and unsupported information. Pirosko entered a conditional guilty plea and received a sentence of 240 months of imprisonment, the statutory maximum. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to compel discovery; that the government used unconstitutional warrantless tracking in order to obtain its search warrant; and that his sentence is greater than necessary to servethe purposes of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). View "United States v. Pirosko" on Justia Law

Lichtenberger lived with Holmes, his girlfriend, at her mother’s home. Friends told Holmes that Lichtenberger had been convicted of child pornography offenses. Holmes requested that the police escort Lichtenberger off the property. Officer Huston determined that Lichtenberger had an active arrest warrant for failing to register as a sex offender and arrested him. Later, Holmes went into their shared bedroom and retrieved his laptop. She later testified that he “would never let me use it or be near him when he was using it and I wanted to know why.” Holmes hacked the laptop, changed the password, and found images of adults engaging in sexual acts with minors. Huston returned. Holmes showed Huston those images and gave him Lichtenberger’s cell phone, flash drive, and marijuana. Lichtenberger was indicted for receipt, possession, and distribution of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2), (a)(4)(B), and (b). The district court granted a motion to suppress, finding that when Huston directed Holmes to show him what she had found, Holmes was acting as a government agent. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that there are extensive privacy interests at stake in laptop searches and Huston had far less than “virtual certainty” regarding what he was going to see when Holmes showed him what she had found. View "United States v. Lichtenberger" on Justia Law