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

Clancy and a partner went to rob a Memphis store. Clancy wore a white hoodie, red pants with white letters, red shoes, a black mask, black gloves, and had a gun. His partner wore a black hoodie, black pants, a black mask, and also carried a gun. Clancy aimed his weapon and said: “You know what time it is.” Within seconds, shots rang out. The manager and another employee grabbed their guns and returned fire. The robbers fled. One employee was shot in the knee. Within 15 minutes of the robbery, a car arrived at the hospital. Two men dressed in black summoned an emergency technician, who found Clancy laying across the backseat with a gunshot wound. The other men left. Clancy wore a light-colored jacket, red pants with a white lettering, red shoes, and a black glove. Officers, walking into the emergency department, found Clancy, and saw his clothing on the floor, visible from the hallway. Crime scene investigators arrived and found Clancy’s bloodied clothes in a plastic bag.Clancy was convicted of attempted Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951, and use of a firearm related to a crime of violence, section 924(c). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, upholding the denial of a motion to suppress the clothing evidence, citing the plain-view doctrine. The court also upheld an instruction that required the jury to find that Clancy, “while being aided and abetted by others unknown,” used a firearm. View "United States v. Clancy" on Justia Law

Hall was convicted of 11 counts of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344(1), and one count of identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1). During her trial, Hall admitted that she signed her children’s, niece’s, and sister’s names and altered her sister’s paystubs to obtain student loan money. She maintained that she thought all her actions did not violate the law and that her family members orally gave her permission to apply for the loans.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Even if the indictment was duplicitous because it included both sections 1344(1) and (2) in each count related to one loan, rather than separating out section 1344(1) as one count for a particular loan and section 1344(2) as another count for that same loan, the government elected to rely on section 1344(1), and the district court only instructed on the elements for section 1344(1). Challenged statements made by the prosecutor were not so flagrant to merit reversal; the defense did not object to the remarks and overwhelming proof of guilt existed. View "United States v. Hall" on Justia Law

FBI agents arrested Alebbini, a Jordanian national who immigrated to the U.S. in 2009 and became a permanent resident in 2014, at the Cincinnati Airport, suspecting that he was attempting to travel to Turkey and then Syria to join ISIS, a designated foreign terrorist organization. Alebbini had previously shouted a threat while being escorted away from the Turkish Embassy and, during the ensuing investigation, told FBI agents that Facebook deactivated his account because he had posted pro-ISIS videos, that he agreed with ISIS’s overall goals but not necessarily with their means, that he attempted to join the U.S. Military to fight Syrian forces, and that he was not a terrorist, but that he “would be the perfect recruit for ISIS.” An informant had recorded conversations in which he expressed pro-ISIS views. His relatives believed he was planning to travel to join ISIS.Alebbini was convicted of attempting and conspiring to provide material support and resources to ISIS, 18 U.S.C. 2339B(a)(1). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for both of his convictions. A rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted evidence contradicting Alebbini’s assertion that he had disavowed his plan. View "United States v. Alebbini" on Justia Law

An informant told the DEA that Ruffin planned to drive to Columbus to purchase heroin from Mexican drug traffickers. She described the SUV, provided the license plate number, and stayed in contact throughout the trip. Agents watched Ruffin and the informant enter the house. Two Hispanic men entered the house briefly. The informant messaged the agents from inside the house that Ruffin had purchased a plastic bag of heroin, and, holding a plastic bag, had gone into the bathroom, where he stayed for about 20 minutes. Agents followed Ruffin until he committed a traffic infraction, then pulled him over. A drug dog alerted on the car. Searches of the car and Ruffin’s person yielded no evidence. The agents suspected that Ruffin had concealed the drugs inside his body. An Ohio magistrate issued a warrant for a body cavity search. Police took Ruffin to the hospital where a nurse conducted a finger-search of Ruffin’s rectum, with Ruffin shackled at the legs and one agent remaining in the room. The nurse’s notes say that she felt something in the anal cavity. The nurse then inserted an instrument to visually examine the inside of Ruffin’s rectum. The nurse’s notes indicate that she saw a foreign object. The physician ordered an X-ray, saw three objects, and ordered soap suds enemas until Ruffin released three bags of heroin and fentanyl.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Ruffin’s motion to suppress the drugs. The facts created a “fair probability” that Ruffin had concealed the drugs in his body, so the magistrate did not “arbitrarily exercise” his discretion in finding probable cause. Although the search could have been handled better, the presence of a warrant, the absence of any safety risk, and the police’s need for evidence make this search reasonable. View "United States v. Ruffin" on Justia Law

In 1997, Gatewood was convicted of two counts of kidnapping and one count of robbery affecting interstate commerce. The court determined that Gatewood’s four prior Arkansas robbery convictions qualified as serious violent felonies and imposed a life sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3559(c), the federal three-strikes statute.In 2016, Gatewood moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing that his robbery convictions had been deemed serious violent felonies only under the residual clause. The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) residual clause had been found unconstitutionally vague in the Supreme Court’s 2015 “Johnson” decision. Gatewood filed his motion within a year of Johnson. The government argued that Johnson could not render the motion timely because it applied only to ACCA. The government also argued procedural default. The Supreme Court decided “Davis” in 2019, finding the 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause, which is nearly identical to the three-strikes residual clause, unconstitutionally vague.The district court denied Gatewood’s motion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. While the government concedes that Gatewood’s motion was timely in light of Davis, Gatewood procedurally defaulted the vagueness claim by failing to raise it on direct review. Gatewood cannot establish cause by showing that his claim cut against circuit precedent at the time of his appeal. From Gatewood’s sentencing to the 2002 conclusion of his appeal, the tools to construct his present vagueness claim existed; no Supreme Court precedent foreclosed it. View "Gatewood v. United States" on Justia Law

On July 24, 2020, the district court denied Payton’s motion for compassionate release or a reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). A notice of appeal, dated August 9, was filed in the district court on August 10. A defendant’s notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed in the district court no later than 14 days after the challenged judgment or order is entered. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). A section 3582(c) motion is a continuation of the criminal proceedings, so the 14-day deadline applies. Rule 4(b)(1)(A)'s deadline is not jurisdictional but is a claims-processing rule; the government can waive an objection to an untimely notice. If the government raises the issue of timeliness, the court must enforce the time limits.In response to the government’s motion to dismiss, Payton asserted that the prison has been “on an institution-wide lockdown and getting copies in this environment is problematic” and argued excusable neglect. Rule 4(b)(4) authorizes the district court to extend the time for filing an appeal for up to 30 days if the court finds “good cause” or “excusable neglect.” The Sixth Circuit remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to determine whether Payton has shown excusable neglect or good cause. View "United States v. Payton" on Justia Law

Ruffin was convicted for a drug-trafficking scheme. The court calculated Ruffin’s guidelines range as 30 years’ to life imprisonment. Ruffin had a blood disorder that had caused him to suffer four strokes. He regularly used a wheelchair due to paralysis on his left side. Ruffin suffers from heart problems, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and blood clots. When balancing the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), the court expressed concern over Ruffin’s witness-tampering and prior convictions.Ruffin has served 10 years of his 25-year sentence. In May 2020, Ruffin sought early “compassionate release” under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), claiming that his health conditions exacerbate the risks from COVID-19, creating “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for relief. The court initially noted that the Sentencing Commission defined “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for relief to cover only medical conditions that substantially diminish a defendant’s ability to provide “self-care” in prison, U.S.S.G. 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)(ii). Next, the court noted that the Commission’s guidance required Ruffin to show that, if released, he would not be a “danger” to the community, section 1B1.13(2), and noted his extensive criminal record. Lastly, the court held that section 3553(a)'s factors counseled against reducing the sentence. Ruffin argued that, after the First Step Act, courts may find extraordinary and compelling reasons beyond those listed in the commentary.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Even when extraordinary and compelling reasons exist, the statute gives courts discretion to deny relief under a balancing of section 3553(a)'s sentencing factors. The district court denied relief not just because no extraordinary and compelling reasons existed, but also because those factors weighed against his release, and did not abuse its discretion when balancing those factors. View "United States v. Ruffin" on Justia Law

Fletcher was convicted of importuning a minor under Ohio law. Under the terms of his probation, Fletcher “[a]greed to a search without warrant of [his] person, [his] motor vehicle or [his] place of residence by a Probation Officer at any time.” During a routine visit, his probation officer noticed that Fletcher had two phones. The officer stated that he was going to search the phones and observed that Fletcher responded nervously and began looking through one of them. Fletcher initially resisted but ultimately unlocked the phone. The officer, searching through the phone, saw an image of child pornography. Detective Carter executed a warrant to search the phone, which contained child pornography that had been downloaded from the internet and that had been filmed by the phone itself. Carter forwarded the videos filmed on the phone to federal agents. For the downloaded child pornography, Fletcher pled guilty in state court, to pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor. For the videos filmed on the phone, Fletcher was charged in federal court with conspiracy to produce child pornography and production of child pornography. His motion to suppress the evidence recovered from his cell phone was denied. Fletcher was sentenced to 35 years in prison, to run concurrently with his 10-year state sentence.The Sixth Circuit reversed. The probation officer did not have reasonable suspicion to search Fletcher’s cell phone and Fletcher’s probation agreement did not authorize the search. View "United States v. Fletcher" on Justia Law

Wilson was arrested after he ran from a routine traffic stop. Police searched the area where Wilson was apprehended and discovered two baggies of cocaine and a loaded handgun. Wilson, with previous convictions for multiple felonies, pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). A typical section 922(g) violation carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, 18 U.S.C 924(a)(2); but the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), imposes a 15-year minimum if the offender has three prior “violent felony” convictions, section 924(e)(1). Wilson objected to an ACCA enhancement, arguing that his prior conviction under Ohio Revised Code 2911.01(A)(3) ((A)(3) Aggravated Robbery was not a violent felony because one could be convicted “even when the victim of the crime suffered little or no actual physical injury.” The court concluded that one of Wilson’s aggravated robbery convictions was not an ACCA violent felony.The Sixth Circuit vacated the 79-month sentence. The 2019 precedent on which the district court relied did not answer whether (A)(3) Aggravated Robbery is a violent felony. The Sixth Circuit found the statute “twice divisible,” so that a modified categorical approach should be applied, and remanded. The sentencing court should determine what crime, with what elements Wilson was convicted of and determine which predicate “theft offense” formed the basis of Wilson’s (A)(3) Aggravated Robbery conviction. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Keahey and McGill lived with their daughter and two boys, the product of McGill’s prior relationship with Hampton. Hampton came to the house, pulled out a knife, charged Keahey, and stabbed him in the back. Keahey and McGill never identified Hampton as the assailant. McGill and the children moved in with her mother, Joyce. Despite a criminal history that prohibited firearm possession, Keahey got a gun. Weeks later, Keahey and McGill planned to meet at the doctor’s office for their daughter’s appointment. Keahey decided to instead go to Joyce's house. Joyce testified that when Hampton arrived with his boys, Keahey fired at an unarmed Hampton and chased Hampton down the sidewalk. A knife found at the scene was locked and closed. Keahey testified that he shot Hampton in self-defense because Hampton had charged at him with a knife. Keahey claims that, as he retreated, he heard a gunshot and saw Hampton, gun in hand, coming toward him. After shooting Hampton twice, Keahey fled.An Ohio trial judge found Keahey failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant a self-defense instruction. State courts rejected his arguments on appeal and on collateral review. Keahey filed a federal habeas petition, citing the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, finding that the state court’s decision was not contrary to, and did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent. View "Keahey v. Marquis" on Justia Law