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

Doe pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. Megan’s Law, Ohio Code section 2950, requires determination of whether a person convicted of a sexually oriented offense is a “sexual predator,” “likely to engage in the future" in "sexually oriented offenses.” Doe’s classification as a sexual predator was affirmed on appeal. Doe is required, for the rest of her life, to register with the sheriff and provide detailed personal information; she must provide written notice of any changes, and verify, in person, the current address of her residence, school, and place of employment every 90 days. Failure to comply is a felony. Doe’s registration information is publicly disseminated through an internet sex-offender database. Doe may not reside within 1000 feet of any school and is barred from living in federally subsidized housing. The law provides that “[i]n no case shall the lifetime duty to comply . . . terminated.” Doe sought a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional in preventing her from obtaining a hearing to demonstrate that she is no longer “likely to reoffend.” The Sixth Circuit upheld the statute, first holding that named state officials did not enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity and that Doe had standing. Doe’s classification is based on her likelihood of reoffending as of the time of the classification hearing; the restrictions stem not from her current dangerousness, but from that assessment. Due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the statutory scheme. View "Doe v. DeWine" on Justia Law

Deputies responding to a call about a disturbance on county property peered into the car in which Carter was sitting with C.C. and saw “a bag containing green leafy substance” and rolling papers. Believing the bag contained marijuana, and learning that C.C. was just 13, the deputies obtained Carter’s consent to search the car and found another bag of marijuana. Carter had an apparent anxiety attack. After an ambulance took Carter away, deputies resumed searching; one picked up what looked like a dictionary, shook it, and realized it was a disguised lockbox. The deputy broke the lock and found sexually explicit photographs of C.C. and DVDs. Carter consented to searches of his apartment and his computer, where more images of C.C. were found. Carter admitted to taking pictures of C.C. and knowingly exposing him to HIV. Carter used the pictures as blackmail to force C.C. into sexual acts. Tennessee charged Carter with child rape, criminal exposure to HIV, sexual exploitation of a minor, and possession of marijuana. After denial of motions to suppress, Carter pled guilty. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals declined to consider whether Carter had consented to the lockbox search. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief, rejecting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Carter cannot demonstrate prejudice. Even if Carter’s counsel had made different arguments, the end result would have remained the same. Seeing a bag of marijuana gave officers probable cause to search. The Supreme Court makes no distinction between searching a vehicle and searching a container within a vehicle. View "Carter v. Parris" on Justia Law

Veloz-Alonso, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. illegally in the 1990s. He was removed in 1997, 1999, and 2008. In 2018, Veloz-Alonso was discovered again and was indicted for illegal reentry. He pleaded guilty and sought release on bail pending sentencing. Under the Bail Reform Act (BRA), a defendant pleading guilty must be detained unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk or a danger to the community, 18 U.S.C. 3143(a)(1). The government argued that Veloz-Alonso was subject to an order of removal and an ICE detainer, so that, if released, he would be taken into custody, removed, and unable to attend a sentencing hearing. The court granted the motion subject to electronic monitoring and a property lien on his house. The court ordered the government, under threat of contempt, “to refrain from detaining or deporting the Defendant while he is released pending sentencing.” The Sixth Circuit reversed. While deportable aliens are not per se ineligible for bail, the district court incorrectly inferred that an alien released on bail is ineligible for ICE detention. Reading the BRA’s permissive use of release to supersede the Immigration and Naturalization Act’s mandatory detention would be incongruent with canons of statutory interpretation. To the extent that ICE may fulfill its statutory mandates without impairing the purpose of the BRA, there is no statutory conflict. View "United States v. Veloz-Alonso" on Justia Law

In 1982, a Tennessee jury convicted Miller of first-degree murder. The court sentenced him to death. In 2012, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Miller’s federal habeas petition. In November 2018, Miller and other Tennessee capital prisoners sought injunctive relief preventing implementation of a recently-adopted lethal-injection protocol. Miller sought a preliminary injunction; his execution is currently scheduled for December 6, 2018. The district court denied a preliminary injunction to prevent the use of the lethal injection protocol. Miller sought a stay while the appeal is pending. The court was notified that Miller has elected to be executed by electrocution. The Sixth Circuit denied his motion. Miller has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Electrocution was the method of execution that existed at the time of Miller’s crime. A change in a State’s method of execution does not constitute an ex post facto violation if the evidence shows the new method to be more humane. Some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution, no matter how humane; the Constitution does not guarantee a pain-free execution. Miller has not shown that the new protocol is “sure or very likely” to be less humane than electrocution but neither method violates the Constitution. View "Miller v. Parker" on Justia Law

A Tennessee sheriff’s deputy noticed a car swerving over the centerline and tried to perform a traffic stop. The car sped away. After a high-speed chase, the car crashed in the woods. Police found Rockymore in the passenger seat, with a loaded firearm on the floorboard in front of him. Rockymore pled guilty as a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). He had previous convictions for burglary and three delivery-of-cocaine charges. Rockymore conceded that his burglary conviction counted as a “violent felony” and one of his delivery-of-cocaine charges qualified as “a serious drug offense,” but contended that the other two cocaine convictions did not fall within the definition of a “serious drug offense.” The district court agreed and declined to enhance Rockymore’s sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that an ACCA increases a felon-in-possession’s sentencing range from zero-to-10 years to 15-to-life. Under the ACCA, a “serious drug offense” is any controlled substance conviction for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 or more years. The district court properly found that, under Tennessee’s “complicated” sentencing scheme, Rockymore was a Range I offender convicted of two Class C felonies, and faced a six-year-maximum sentence for each. View "United States v. Rockymore" on Justia Law

From 2008-2016, Brennan and Dyer (Defendants) operated Broad Street, to incorporate Tennessee corporations (Scenic City). They claimed that once Scenic City was appropriately capitalized, Defendants would register its common stock with the SEC using Form 10, would publicly trade Scenic City, and would acquire small businesses as a legal reverse merger. Investors sent money by mail and electronic wire from other states. Defendants moved the funds through Broad Street’s bank accounts, diverting significant funds to their personal bank accounts. They issued stock certificates and mailed them to investors, but never filed Form 10 nor completed any reverse mergers. Investors lost $4,942,070.18. Defendants reported the embezzled funds as long-term capital gains, substantially reducing their personal tax liability and treated payments to themselves from Broad Street as nontaxable distributions. For 2010-2014, Dyer owed an additional $312,799 in taxes; Brennan owed $164,542. The SEC began a civil enforcement suit under 15 U.S.C. 77(q)(a)(1), 77(q)(a)(2), 77(q)(a)(3), and 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5. Defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 371, 1341 and tax evasion, 26 U.S.C 7201. The court sentenced them to prison, ordered restitution ($4,942,070.18), and ordered payments for their tax evasion. The SEC sought and the court entered a disgorgement order to be offset by the restitution ordered in the criminal case. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the disgorgement violates the Double Jeopardy Clause under the Supreme Court’s 2017 “Kokesh” holding that disgorgement, in SEC enforcement proceedings, "operates as a penalty under [28 U.S.C.] 2462.” SEC civil disgorgement is not a criminal punishment. View "United States v. Dyer" on Justia Law

In 1992-2006, Snider committed various crimes, including four convictions under Tennessee’s aggravated burglary statute. In 2007, he was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 846; manufacturing and attempting to manufacture over 50 grams of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 846; possessing equipment, chemicals, products, and materials that may be used to manufacture methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(6); possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, 18 U.S.C 922(g); possessing a stolen firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(j); and possessing a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. 924(c). Snider was sentenced as a career criminal offender based on three Tennessee aggravated burglary convictions deemed crimes of violence (USSG 4B1.1(b)(B)), which was defined to include “burglary of a dwelling.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Snider’s motion (28 U.S.C. 2255) to vacate his sentence, rejecting his argument that its 2017 "Stitt" ruling that a conviction for Tennessee aggravated burglary is not a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e) required that it vacate his sentence as a career offender under the sentencing guidelines. Snider’s challenge to his advisory guidelines range is not cognizable under section 2255, which authorizes post-conviction relief only when a sentence “was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or . . . the court was without jurisdiction ... or . . . the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” View "Snider v. United States" on Justia Law

Havis pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). He had a lengthy criminal record. The district court concluded that his 20-year-old state conviction for selling or delivering cocaine was a “controlled substance offense” under the Guidelines and increased his base offense level. Havis objected, arguing that delivering cocaine does not qualify as a “controlled substance offense” and that it was unclear whether his state conviction was for delivery or sale. The district court rejected this argument, citing the Sixth Circuit’s prior holding that any violation of the Tennessee statute at issue is a controlled substance offense. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying the categorical approach: the court did not examine the facts of Havis’s actual misconduct but relied on the elements of drug delivery under Tennessee law. The court’s precedential interpretation of the Guidelines’s definition of “controlled substance offense” included attempts to commit the offense. The court acknowledged that the precedential opinion’s reliance on commentary to the Guidelines was problematic, but concluded that it was bound by precedent and rejected an argument that the Tennessee statute was overbroad. View "United States v. Havis" on Justia Law

The Sixth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring and attempting to possess, as well as possessing, cocaine with the intent to distribute it. The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to exclude data obtained from his cell phone where the warrant's execution deadline established only the date by when the cellphone needed to be shipped to the data extraction laboratory to initiate the analysis of the phone's data, not when the extraction itself had to occur; the district court did not plainly err in overruling defendant's Batson objection to a peremptory juror challenge where there was no evidence of discriminatory intent inherent in the government's proffered explanation and defendant made no attempt to argue to the district court that the explanation was a pretext for discrimination; the testimony regarding the firearm found at the residence was admissible evidence indicative of the drug-trafficking conspiracy; and the government's comments did not constitute misconduct or rise to the level of argument that might mislead or inflame the jury concerning its duty. View "United States v. Cleveland" on Justia Law

After federal agents arrested Robert Doggart for plotting to attack an Islamic community at the foothills of the Catskill Mountains, he attempted to plead guilty to making a threat in interstate commerce, a crime carrying a sentence of no more than five years. But the district court found that he had not made a cognizable threat and rejected his plea under Criminal Rule 11. After that and after the government added some charges, a jury convicted Doggart of solicitation to damage religious property and solicitation to commit arson, leaving him with a sentence of almost 20 years. Because the district court wrongly rejected the plea agreement, the Sixth Circuit reversed its decision to reject the agreement, left in place the later convictions, and remanded for it to reconsider the agreement under the correct law. View "United States v. Doggart" on Justia Law