Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Criminal Law
United States v. White
Narcotics investigator Williams received information from a confidential source that White was selling marijuana from a Covington, Tennessee location. Williams enlisted the confidential source to execute a “controlled buy” from White. After reviewing the recorded audio-video footage of the transaction, which occurred in the driveway, and conducting additional investigation, Williams prepared an affidavit and obtaining a search warrant for the address, stating: A sudden and forceful entry is clearly necessary ... due to ... White’s extensive criminal history … Albert is also known to have dogs believed to [be] pit bulls. The ensuing search uncovered over a pound of marijuana, a firearm, ammunition, and $32,000 in cash, some of which was traced to the controlled buy. The district court agreed with White that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause, but denied a motion to suppress, noting defendant’s failure to object to the magistrate’s good-faith ruling. Convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm and of ammunition, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), White was sentenced to 33 months in prison, concurrent with an on-going state sentence for his probation violation. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the court erred in denying the motion to suppress and committed plain error in failing to specify the “start date” for his federal sentence or adjusting it under USSG. 5G1.3(b). View "United States v. White" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
United States v. Haroon
Born in Pakistan, Haroon came to the U.S. on a visitor’s visa in 2002. Six months later, Haroon returned to Pakistan, married Bano, and the couple had a son. One week after the birth, they divorced. The next day, Haroon returned to the U.S. on another six-month visa. Within two months, Haroon married McVey, an American citizen. They filed a relative petition which permitted Haroon to apply for permanent residence. After a two-year probationary period, Haroon applied to have the conditions on his permanent residence removed. While that application was pending, Haroon and McVey divorced. Haroon became an American citizen. At each stage of this process, Haroon lied. The forms (G-325, I- 485, I-751, and N-400) asked whether Haroon had any children or former wives. On each form and in interviews, Haroon denied marrying Bano and denied the existence of children, even after returning to Bano in Pakistan during the probationary period and after Bano gave birth to another son nine months later. One month after becoming a citizen, Haroon returned to Pakistan, where he remarried Bano. He flew back to the U.S and filed relative petitions for Bano, two sons, and seven other family members. The government charged Haroon with “knowingly procur[ing]” his citizenship “contrary to law,” 18 U.S.C. 1425(a). The Sixth CIrcuit affirmed his conviction, sentence of two years’ probation, and revocation of his citizenship. View "United States v. Haroon" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law, Immigration Law
Wilson v. Sheldon
Navarre, a confidential informant for the Toledo Vice Narcotics Unit (TPD), was found unresponsive and bleeding from the head on December 1, 1993. A bloody, 110-pound boulder was found near her body. Navarre died days later. TPD misclassified the offense as a felonious assault and destroyed the relevant evidence once the statute of limitation for felonious assault expired. The case remained unsolved until 2005, when Wilson’s wife, told TPD of Wilson’s possible involvement in Navarre’s murder. Mrs. Wilson testified against Wilson, but owing to Wilson’s assertion of spousal privilege, her testimony was limited to acts and communications by Wilson in the presence of a third party. Mrs. Wilson’s son also testified that on the night of the murder, Wilson made comments that “snitch bitches die,” and “he had to kill the snitch bitch,” and finally, that he“dropped a brick on her head.” Wilson was convicted of murder and sentenced to 15 years to life. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the physical evidence, including the bloody boulder, was not “materially exculpatory.” The trial court rejected, as untimely, Wilson’s “motion to vacate” in which he argued that the state failed to adhere to discovery obligations, depriving him of a fair trial. The Ohio Court of Appeals denied his application to reopen his appeal, in which he claimed ineffective assistance. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition. View "Wilson v. Sheldon" on Justia Law
In re: Campbell
A jury convicted Campbell of four counts of aggravated murder, four counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of attempted kidnapping, and one count each of kidnapping, felonious assault, escape, and having a weapon under a disability. The court adopted the jury's recommendation and sentenced him to death. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed Campbell’s convictions but remanded for resentencing due to a procedural error. On remand, the court resentenced Campbell to death. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. In 2005, Campbell filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition, alleging 12 grounds for relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the petition. In 2015, Campbell filed a second section 2254 petition, challenging Ohio’s lethal injection protocol. The magistrate ordered and the district court affirmed its transfer to the Sixth Circuit for initial review as a “successive” habeas petition. The Sixth Circuit denied the motion. Under Supreme Court precedent, an Eighth Amendment habeas corpus challenge to the death penalty cannot succeed unless it can identify a constitutional means of execution. The court rejected arguments based on Ohio’s changed execution protocol and on Campbell’s physical and mental health. The court noted that Campbell’s alternative, 42 U.S.C. 1983, empowers a court to enjoin the"deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution." A hearing on Campbell’s section 1983 motion is scheduled. View "In re: Campbell" on Justia Law
United States v. Adams
Adams, 71, has been addicted to opiates for most of his life and has an extensive criminal history. In 2011, Adams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. 846 and 841(a)(1). After serving his custodial sentence, Adams began supervised release in July 2015. Starting in October 2015, Adams repeatedly tested positive for opiates.The Probation Office placed Adams in multiple drug-treatment programs, without success. After Adams tested positive for opiates three times between October 24 and November 15, 2016, the Probation Office filed another violation report. Following Adams’s failure of another drug test on November 30, it filed an amended report. At his hearing, Adams admitted that he unlawfully used controlled substances. The Guidelines range for the violation was incarceration of 21 to 27 months. After extensive discussion of Adams’s substance-abuse and the failure of treatment programs, the district court revoked Adams’s supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months of incarceration with no period of supervision to follow. The Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence. The court violated Adams’s due-process right when it based his sentence on unreliable information about rehabilitation and violated Supreme Court precedent, Tapia v. United States (2011), when it considered rehabilitation as a factor when calculating the length of incarceration. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
United States v. Phillips
Blue gem coal burns hotter and cleaner than thermal coal, making it useful for producing silicon, a critical ingredient of computer chips and solar panels. Environmental regulations make it difficult to mine. Demand for blue gem coal outstrips its supply; it commands premium prices. New Century advertised itself as one of the largest blue gem coal companies in the country, falsely claiming to own land with valuable deposits and to have mining permits. By the time law enforcement caught on, the company had swindled more than $14 million from more than 160 investors. Eleven people involved in the scheme, including the mastermind, Rose, pleaded guilty. Phillips, who worked for New Century scouting property, went to trial. Phillips helped Rose, a NASCAR driver with little experience in the coal industry, identify land with coal-mining potential. The evidence portrayed Phillips as a coal-industry expert who helped New Century convince investors that it was legitimate. Phillips claimed he had no idea that the company defrauded investors. The jury convicted Phillips of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud but acquitted him of two money-laundering charges. The judge sentenced him to 30 months in prison. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and to evidentiary rulings. View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law, White Collar Crime
United States v. Greer
Hamilton County Deputy Greer pulled over a female driver who had been drinking, had no driver’s license, and had an outstanding arrest warrant. Greer ran her license but did not arrest her. He had her drive to a secluded location where he had her perform oral sex on him. Later that day, the woman filed charges. A detective interviewed Greer that day. Greer said that he had run the woman’s license plate but had no personal interaction with her. Later in the interview, Greer said that he had not activated his police lights or detained her but that she had approached him with the sexual proposition. Greer eventually admitted to the woman’s version of the facts; investigators recovered his semen from the woman’s clothing. State charges were dismissed following a federal indictment. Greer pleaded guilty to witness tampering, 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(3), in exchange for dismissal of other charges. The district court applied a Cross Reference to USSG 2X3.1, Accessory After the Fact, based on an underlying offense of the civil rights violation being investigated--aggravated rape. Greer argued that there had been no prosecution for rape and that there was not sufficient evidence that it was “committed.” Greer also unsuccessfully sought downward departures, arguing that this was “aberrant behavior” and that the woman falsely claimed that the sex was rape. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Greer’s below-guidelines sentence of 60 months. View "United States v. Greer" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
United States v. Pham
Pham pleaded guilty as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The government argued that Pham was subject to the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e) (ACCA), which imposes a 15-year minimum sentence on anyone convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm who has “three previous convictions by any court” for a “serious drug offense” “committed on occasions different from one another.” Cole had a 2003 Tennessee conviction for conspiring to deliver ecstasy; two 2004 federal convictions for possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine and ecstasy, each based on a February 12, 2004 sale to a confidential informant; and two 2004 federal convictions for possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine and ecstasy, each based on a February 28, 2004, search of Pham’s residence. Pham objected, arguing that another 2004 federal conviction, for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and ecstasy from October 2003 to February 2004, subsumed the other 2004 offenses because he committed them to further the conspiracy. The court found the ACCA applicable and sentenced Pham to 188 months of imprisonment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the 2004 convictions counted as qualifying offenses, having occurred on different occasions under the statute. View "United States v. Pham" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
United States v. Robinson
In 2008, Arise, a Dayton community school (charter school), faced declining enrollment, financial troubles, and scandal after its treasurer was indicted for embezzlement. The school’s sponsor sought a radical change in administration, elevated Arise’s former principal, Floyd, to superintendent, removed all board members, and appointed Floyd’s recommended candidates to the new board. Floyd set up a kickback scheme, using former business partners to form Global Educational Consultants, which contracted with Arise. Global received $420,919 from Arise. While Global was being paid, Arise teachers’ salaries were cut and staff members were not consistently paid. Arise ran out of money and closed in 2010. The FBI investigated and signed a proffer agreement with Ward, the “silent partner” at Global, then indicted Floyd, Arise board members, and Global's owner. They were convicted of federal programs bribery, conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery, and making material false statements, 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(B), (a)(2); 18 U.S.C. 371; 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2). Two African-American jurors reported that they were initially unconvinced; the jury foreperson, a white woman, reportedly told them that she believed they were reluctant to convict because they felt they “owed something” to their “black brothers.” This remark prompted a confrontation, requiring the marshal to intervene.The Sixth Circuit affirmed their convictions, rejecting arguments based on the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. Although Pena-Rodriguez permitted, in very limited circumstances, an inquiry into a jury’s deliberations, this case did not fit into those limited circumstances. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law
United States v. Verwiebe
The Bay Mills Tribal Police Department broadcast a lookout notice for Verwiebe after it received a report that he had assaulted his girlfriend. When officers located Verwiebe, he pulled a knife from his waistband, raised it over his head, and threatened to kill the officers. The officers eventually got control of him with the help of a bystander. In the police car, Verwiebe continued to threaten the officers and even spat on them. Verwiebe pleaded guilty to assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer with a dangerous weapon. He was scored as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 based on his prior federal convictions for assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm, 18 U.S.C. 113(a)(3), and assault resulting in serious bodily injury, 18 U.S.C. 113(a)(6). At sentencing, the district court found that each conviction qualified as a crime of violence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the sentence, applying the November 2016 Sentencing Manual. Because each crime combines common law assault with an additional element that, together, indicate “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,” both of them amounted to “crimes of violence” under Sentencing Guidelines section 4B1.2(a). View "United States v. Verwiebe" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law