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

Maxwell was convicted of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine and heroin. The crack-cocaine offense then generated a sentencing range of 20 years to life and the heroin offense generated a range of 10 years to life, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)–(B). Applying the 2009 Guidelines, the court treated Maxwell as a career offender and sentenced Maxwell to 30 years. While Maxwell’s appeal was pending, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 increased the quantity of crack cocaine needed to trigger a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence but did not apply retroactively. Maxwell sought collateral relief. The Sixth Circuit ruled that his trial attorney violated Maxwell’s rights when he failed to argue that the two conspiracy counts were multiplicitous.On remand, the district court vacated Maxwell’s heroin conviction and imposed a 30-year sentence on the cocaine conviction alone. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. In 2018, the First Step Act authorized courts to lower sentences imposed for crack-cocaine offenses “as if” the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act had been the law during the original sentencing. Maxwell unsuccessfully moved for a sentence reduction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Fair Sentencing Act does not require plenary resentencing hearings and does not expressly permit a court to reduce a sentence based on other intervening changes in the law, such as those concerning career offender status. Operating within its broad discretion, the court considered and rejected each of Maxwell’s arguments. View "United States v. Maxwell" on Justia Law

Lopez, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the U.S. in the 1990s without admission or parole. In 2003, the government charged her with removability under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and sent Lopez a Notice to Appear that contained a warning in English that if she failed to attend the hearing, the IJ could order her removal, and she might be arrested as a result. Lopez failed to appear at her removal hearing. The IJ ordered her removal in absentia. Immigration officials detained Lopez a few years later. In 2017, Lopez moved to reopen her removal proceedings, claiming that she was the derivative beneficiary of her husband’s pending application for protection under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA).The IJ denied Lopez’s motion, finding Lopez’s NACARA-based claims untimely and that her motion failed to include required documents. The IJ also declined to exercise its discretionary authority to sua sponte reopen Lopez’s removal proceedings. The BIA affirmed, rejecting Lopez’s additional argument on appeal that the 2004 removal order should be rescinded because the Notice to Appear was delivered in English, not in her native language. The Seventh Circuit rejected a petition for review and dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, Lopez’s challenge to the BIA’s decision not to sua sponte reopen her case under its discretionary authority, View "Lopez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Duran transported drugs from California to Ohio on a bus. Duran carried 10 packages of methamphetamine, a total of 4,427 grams. The DEA intercepted Duran, who agreed to cooperate and allowed the government to copy calls, texts, and data from her cellphone. When officers surrounded Rosales, Duran’s contact, in a parking lot, Rosales destroyed his cell phone. Officers found cash totaling $6,962 in Rosales’ pocket. Officers searched his pickup truck and found money orders that matched details sent to Duran. In Rosales’ home, officers found $9,500 in cash. No controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, or drug ledgers were found. The court instructed the jury to find the quantity of drugs involved in the conspiracy as a whole, rather than just the amount that was foreseeable to Rosales. The jury convicted Rosales on conspiracy and attempt to possess counts and found that the conspiracy involved 4,427 grams of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 846, 841(a)(1); 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). The court gave a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice because Rosales threw his cellphone down during his arrest but departed down from the Guidelines range and imposed a sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions. There was sufficient evidence to convict on both counts. The court erred in failing to provide defendant-specific jury instructions but the error was harmless because it could not have contributed to a different result. The court remanded for the limited purpose of reconsidering whether the obstruction of justice enhancement applies after making the necessary factual findings. View "United States v. Rosales" on Justia Law

In 2018, Tomes pleaded guilty to drug, firearm, and money laundering charges and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. In 2020, Tomes sought compassionate release, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that COVID-19, coupled with his increased susceptibility to serious illness because of chronic asthma, constituted an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for release and that the law has changed since his sentencing, so he would receive a shorter sentence today. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that U.S.S.G. 1B1.13 “limits the ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for compassionate release” and Tomes had not “identified any medical ailments that are so severe they would justify release.” The Bureau of Prisons was taking precautionary measures to prevent an outbreak and Tomes did not show that the Bureau could not treat him if he got sick. The court also rejected his contention that his rehabilitation, strong family support, and apparently inequitable sentence were extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. The court “considered each of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors” and found that they did not favor release.The Sixth Circuit affirmed. even if a district court wrongly constrains itself to section 1B1.13 to define extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, its decision may be upheld if the court uses section 3553(a) as an independent reason to deny relief. The First Step Act provision cited by Tomes did not apply to his sentence. View "United States v. Tomes" on Justia Law

Taylor robbed a bank at gunpoint. He led the police on a high-speed chase, killed an innocent driver, shot another driver, and abducted a woman and her child. Taylor was convicted of killing a person while avoiding an arrest for bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113(e); Taylor’s convictions were affirmed; the Sixth Circuit held that the government did not need to prove Taylor’s intent to kill. In 2005, Taylor moved to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. 2255(a). The district court denied the motion as time-barred. In 2018, Taylor sought habeas corpus relief, 28 U.S.C. 2241, citing intervening case law to establish the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of section 2255 relief and to establish his eligibility for habeas relief under section 2241; arguing that these cases vindicated his earlier contention that proof of intent to kill was necessary for conviction. Taylor claimed actual innocence based on lack of intent.The Sixth Circuit remanded with instructions to dismiss the application for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. If a prisoner can file a section 2255 motion but “fail[s]” to do so or is unsuccessful, a court “shall not . . . entertain[]” his application for a writ of habeas corpus under section 2241 unless it “appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” The "saving clause" is a limitation on subject-matter jurisdiction. Taylor’s claim of actual innocence has no basis in the cited precedent. View "Taylor v. Owens" on Justia Law

Muskegon Detective Schmidt, an undercover agent, asked a suspected drug dealer, Conkle, to buy some cocaine. The two drove to a house that belonged to White. Schmidt watched Conkle walk into White’s house and reemerge, after which Conkle handed Schmidt three grams of cocaine. About 40 days later, Conkle again took Schmidt to White’s house. In a nearby alley. Schmidt handed Conkle pre-marked cash. Conkle drove by himself to White’s house. Another detective watched as Conkle entered the house, reemerged, and traveled back to Schmidt, where he completed the sale, Schmidt applied for a search warrant within 48 hours of Conkle’s second purchase, citing the two purchases, his training and experience of 17 years, and his confirmation that the home belonged to White. A Michigan state judge approved a “no-knock” warrant. The search uncovered over 20 grams of cocaine, over 30 grams of “crack” cocaine, a stolen semi-automatic handgun, an AR-style rifle, and over $2,500 in cash. The government charged White with being a felon in possession of a firearm, possessing a firearm to further drug trafficking, possessing with intent to distribute controlled substances, and brandishing a weapon to further drug trafficking.The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting a motion to suppress. The issuing judge had a substantial basis for finding probable cause. The key remedy for unjustified no-knock entries is a section 1983 action for money damages, not the exclusion of the evidence. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

In 1989, the Plaintiffs opened Money Market Investment Accounts (MMIAs) with FNB. FNB guaranteed that the MMIAs’ annual rate of interest would “never fall below 6.5%.” The original contract did not limit an account holder’s right to enforce the agreement in court but stated: Changes in the terms of this agreement may be made by the financial institution from time to time and shall become effective upon the earlier of (a) the expiration of a thirty-day period of posting of such changes in the financial institution, or (b) the making or delivery of notice thereof to the depositor by the notice in the depositor’s monthly statement for one month.In 1997, FNB merged with BankFirst. In 2001, BankFirst merged with BB&T, which sent a Bank Services Agreement (BSA) to each account holder, which included an arbitration provision. A 2004 BSA amendment added a class action waiver. A 2017 Amendment made massive changes to the BSA, including an extensive arbitration provision and stating that continued use of the account after receiving notice constituted acceptance of the changes. The Plaintiffs maintained their accounts. In 2018, the Plaintiffs were notified that the annual percentage rate applicable to their accounts would drop from 6.5% to 1.05%.The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' breach of contract suit. Because there was no mutual assent, the 2001 BSA and its subsequent amendments are invalid to the extent that they materially changed the terms of the original agreement. BB&T gave the Plaintiffs no choice other than to acquiesce or to close their high-yield savings accounts. BB&T did not act reasonably when it added the arbitration provision years after the Plaintiffs’ accounts were established, thus violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. View "Sevier County Schools Federal Credit Union v. Branch Banking & Trust Co." on Justia Law

A neighbor called 911, telling the dispatcher that Gissantaner, a convicted felon, had a gun. Responding officers found a pistol in Gissantaner’s house, inside a chest belonging to Gissantaner’s roommate. When the government charged Gissantaner with possessing a firearm as a felon, it used DNA-sorting evidence, "STRmix," to link Gissantaner to the gun. Gissantaner moved to exclude the evidence as unreliable under Evidence Rule 702. Gissantaner and the government retained experts, who took competing positions. The district court appointed two experts of its own: One said that STRmix evidence is reliable in general and as applied to this case; the other said it is reliable in general but not as applied to this case.In an interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit applied the “Daubert” factors and held that the evidence should be admitted. The record in this case provides a long proof that STRmix is testable and refutable. At the time of the Daubert hearing in the district court, more than 50 published peer-reviewed articles had addressed STRmix. According to one expert, STRmix is the “most tested and most . . . peer reviewed” probabilistic genotyping software available. STRmix has a low error rate and has garnered wide use in forensic laboratories across the country. View "United States v. Gissantaner" on Justia Law

Stewart, a co-owner of RRL and president of its subsidiary, IHT, formed a potential competitor. She was removed from the presidency, then launched a smear campaign against her replacement. RRL's other members voted to buy out her ownership interest. Stewart refused to sell her membership units. RRL sued. Stewart counterclaimed. As part of the buyout, RRL cut off Stewart’s health- and life insurance benefits. Stewart alleged that she remained an active member of RRL and was entitled to those benefits. An arbitration panel sided with RRL on all issues and ordered Stewart to sell her membership units and to release all claims against RRL and its affiliates “from the beginning of the world” to that day. The state court affirmed.During the arbitration, Stewart and her son filed this lawsuit, claiming that IHT violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1161–1163. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on alternative grounds: Stewart had released all her claims and res judicata barred her from relitigating her removal from RRL and discontinued benefits. On appeal, the Stewarts challenged only whether Stewart released all of her claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Stewarts forfeited any right to challenge the res judicata ruling. Even if Stewart’s claims were not released, the res judicata conclusion would still stand. The Stewarts needed to win two arguments for reversal of the dismissal. View "Stewart v. IHT Insurance Agency Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Swiger accepted a $1200 loan from online lender Plain Green, an entity owned by and organized under the laws of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation, Montana. She describes Rees as the “mastermind” behind a "rent-a-tribe" scheme, alleging that he and his company used Plain Green's tribal sovereign immunity as a front to shield them from state and federal law. When Swiger signed the loan contract, she affirmed that Plain Green enjoys “immun[ity] from suit in any court,” and that the loan “shall be governed by the laws of the tribe,” not the laws of any state. She agreed to binding arbitration under tribal law, subject to review only in tribal court. The provision covers “any issue concerning the validity, enforceability, or scope of this Agreement or this Agreement to Arbitrate.” Seven months after accepting the loan, Swiger alleged that she repaid $1170.54 but still owed $1922.37.Swiger sued, citing Michigan and federal law, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and consumer protection laws. The district court concluded that the enforceability of the arbitration agreement “has already been litigated, and decided against Rees, in a similar case commenced in Vermont.” The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to stay the case pending arbitration. Swiger’s arbitration agreement includes an unchallenged provision delegating the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator. The district court exceeded its authority when it found the agreement unenforceable View "Swiger v. Rosette" on Justia Law