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

In 2018, Alexander Sittenfeld, a Cincinnati city council member, was involved in a scheme where he solicited campaign donations in exchange for promises of official action. Sittenfeld had conversations with Chinedum Ndukwe, a local developer working with the FBI, and undercover agents posing as investors. Sittenfeld solicited donations from Ndukwe and later from an undercover agent, Rob, in exchange for supporting a property development project at 435 Elm Street. Despite the conversations being recorded, the evidence was not overwhelming. However, a jury found that Sittenfeld solicited or accepted campaign donations in exchange for his promise to support the project.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio convicted Sittenfeld of attempted Hobbs Act extortion and federal-program bribery. Sittenfeld moved for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence and constructive amendment of the indictment. The district court denied both motions and sentenced Sittenfeld to sixteen months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. Sittenfeld argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove an explicit quid pro quo and that the indictment was constructively amended. The court held that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient for a rational jury to find Sittenfeld guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that the jury instructions, although broader than the indictment, did not result in a constructive amendment. The court affirmed Sittenfeld's conviction, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's verdict and that there was no substantial likelihood that Sittenfeld was convicted of an offense not charged in the indictment. View "United States v. Sittenfeld" on Justia Law

Derek Kramer, the plaintiff, joined American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP) in 2018 and later participated in the AEP Executive Severance Plan. In 2020, AEP terminated Kramer’s employment due to his executive assistant’s misuse of a company credit card and Kramer’s alleged interference with an investigation into his company-issued cell phone. Kramer applied for severance benefits under the Plan, but AEP denied his claim, citing termination for cause. Kramer appealed the decision, but the Plan’s appeal committee upheld the denial.Kramer then filed an ERISA action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking benefits and alleging interference. He also demanded a jury trial. The district court struck his jury demand, limited discovery to procedural claims, and denied his motion to compel the production of documents protected by attorney-client privilege. The court ultimately granted judgment in favor of AEP and the Plan, finding that the denial of benefits was not arbitrary and capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the Plan was a top-hat plan exempt from ERISA’s fiduciary requirements, thus the fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege did not apply. The court also upheld the district court’s decision to strike Kramer’s jury demand, citing precedent that ERISA denial-of-benefits claims are equitable in nature and not subject to jury trials. Finally, the court found that the district court correctly applied the arbitrary-and-capricious standard in reviewing the denial of benefits and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of AEP and the Plan. View "Kramer v. American Electric Power Service Corp. Executive Severance Plan" on Justia Law

Javi Porter, a lawful permanent resident of the United States and a native of Jamaica, was convicted under Virginia law for possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) classified this conviction as an aggravated felony and initiated removal proceedings against him. Porter sought review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to terminate removal proceedings and found him removable as an aggravated felon.The IJ denied Porter’s motion to terminate the removal proceedings, concluding that DHS had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Porter was convicted of an aggravated felony. The IJ sustained the charge of removability and denied Porter’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. The IJ later issued a final summary order finding Porter removable as charged. Porter appealed to the BIA, arguing that the IJ erred in denying his motion to terminate the removal proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Porter’s Virginia drug-trafficking conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court found that the Virginia statute under which Porter was convicted is divisible by the identity of the controlled substance and applied the modified categorical approach. The court concluded that possession with intent to distribute any amount of methamphetamine is a federal felony under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Therefore, Porter’s conviction under Virginia law is a categorical match to a felony offense under the CSA, rendering him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The court denied Porter’s petition for review. View "Porter v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Quincy Taylor was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The charges stemmed from an incident where Taylor was involved in a car accident, and a witness, William Howell, testified that Taylor had a bag containing drugs and a firearm. Howell's testimony was the only evidence linking Taylor to the contraband.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky limited Taylor's ability to cross-examine Howell about his criminal history and potential bias. Specifically, the court allowed Taylor to ask if Howell had any felony convictions but prohibited questions about the nature of the conviction, Howell's pending felon-in-possession charge, and any benefits Howell might receive for his cooperation. Taylor argued that these limitations violated his Confrontation Clause rights under the Sixth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court's limitations on cross-examination violated Taylor's constitutional right to confront witnesses. The court determined that the jury did not have sufficient information to assess Howell's potential bias and motive for testifying. The court also found that the error was not harmless, as Howell's testimony was crucial to the prosecution's case, and there was no other evidence linking Taylor to the contraband.As a result, the Sixth Circuit reversed Taylor's convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the district court's limitations on cross-examination violated Taylor's Confrontation Clause rights and that the error was not harmless. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Edna Napier, a former cashier and certified nursing assistant, applied for disability insurance benefits due to severe physical conditions and mental impairments, including depression and anxiety. Her initial application was denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA) in 2018. Napier filed a new application in December 2019, claiming she had been unable to work since December 2018. An administrative law judge (ALJ) held an evidentiary hearing and concluded that Napier was not disabled under the Social Security Act, finding that her mental impairments were mild and her physical impairments did not prevent her from performing her past work as a cashier.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky affirmed the ALJ's decision. Napier appealed, arguing that the ALJ erred in assessing the severity of her mental impairments and failed to account for them in her residual functional capacity (RFC) analysis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and complied with proper legal standards. The ALJ had considered Napier's testimony, her limited treatment history for mental impairments, and the opinions of several psychologists. The ALJ found that Napier's mental impairments were not severe and that her physical impairments did not preclude her from performing her past work. The court also found that the ALJ adequately accounted for Napier's mental impairments in the RFC analysis.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ had followed the appropriate procedures in evaluating Napier's claims. View "Napier v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

In March 2020, Andrew Cooperrider, owner of Brewed, a coffee shop and bar in Lexington, Kentucky, criticized Governor Beshear’s COVID-19 policies on social media. In November 2020, the Kentucky Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC) suspended Brewed’s alcohol license, and officially revoked it in March 2022. Cooperrider filed a lawsuit against Governor Beshear, DABC officials, and other state officials, alleging First Amendment retaliation and due-process violations, claiming the license revocation was in retaliation for his critical speech.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed the case, granting the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court found that most of Cooperrider’s claims were barred by absolute, qualified, and sovereign immunity. It also determined that Cooperrider’s remaining substantive-due-process claim did not meet the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of most claims, agreeing that the defendants were protected by absolute, qualified, and sovereign immunity. However, the appellate court found that the district court improperly granted qualified immunity to Governor Beshear, Ray Perry, and Wesley Duke regarding Cooperrider’s First Amendment retaliation claim. The appellate court held that Cooperrider had plausibly alleged that the enforcement action against Brewed was motivated by his protected speech. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s decision on this point and remanded the case for further proceedings on the First Amendment retaliation claim. View "Cooperrider v. Woods" on Justia Law

William A., a dyslexic student, graduated from high school with a 3.4 GPA but was unable to read. His parents filed a complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), claiming the school failed to provide him with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The school had developed an individualized education plan (IEP) for William, which included language therapy and one-on-one instruction, but he made no progress in reading fluency throughout middle and high school. His parents eventually arranged for private tutoring, which helped him make some progress.An administrative law judge (ALJ) held a due-process hearing and found that the school had violated William's right to a FAPE under the IDEA. The ALJ ordered the school to provide 888 hours of dyslexia tutoring. William's parents then sought an order in federal court for the tutoring to be provided by a specific tutor, Dr. McAfee. The school counterclaimed, seeking reversal of the ALJ's order. The district court, applying a "modified de novo" standard of review, affirmed the ALJ's findings and ordered the same relief but denied the request for Dr. McAfee specifically.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the school had not provided William with a FAPE, as his IEPs focused on fluency rather than foundational reading skills necessary for him to learn to read. The court noted that William's accommodations masked his inability to read rather than addressing it. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the school failed to provide an education tailored to William's unique needs, as required by the IDEA. View "William A. v. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System" on Justia Law

Juan Grogan was convicted by a jury of possessing a firearm as a felon, possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute. During his trial, the judge allowed the government to admit testimony about statements Grogan made during a proffer session, where he admitted ownership of drugs, a firearm, and a wallet, and his involvement in a shooting and a kidnapping. Grogan argued on appeal that the admission of these statements was erroneous because the conditions of the proffer agreement were not met.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied Grogan's motion to suppress evidence obtained during an inventory search of his vehicle, which led to the discovery of the drugs and firearm. Grogan testified at trial, challenging the government's evidence and the validity of the warrants. The government introduced his proffer statements to rebut his testimony, leading to his conviction on all counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in admitting several of Grogan's proffer statements. The court held that Grogan's invocation of the Fifth Amendment did not constitute inconsistent testimony that would allow the government to introduce his proffer statements. Additionally, the court found that Grogan's statements questioning the sufficiency of the government's evidence did not contradict his proffer admissions.The Sixth Circuit concluded that the improper admission of Grogan's proffer statements, particularly his admission of drug ownership, was not harmless error. The court determined that the government's heavy reliance on these statements likely influenced the jury's verdict. As a result, the court reversed Grogan's convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Grogan" on Justia Law

John Hale pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual battery by unlawful sexual contact in 2010 and was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment and lifetime supervision in Tennessee state court. He was required to register as a sex offender. In 2011, Hale was indicted in the Middle District of Tennessee for traveling out of state and failing to update his sex-offender registration, violating the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment, consecutive to his state sentence, and ten years of supervised release with special conditions. Hale began his supervised release in June 2018 and violated a condition in January 2020 by consuming alcohol.Hale moved for early termination of his supervised release after serving four years and four months of his ten-year term, citing his compliance with supervision conditions, sex-offender treatment, and support letters. His federal probation officer could not recommend early termination due to office policy, but the United States did not oppose the motion. The district court denied Hale’s motion, commending his behavior but finding it insufficiently exceptional to warrant early termination. Hale appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial under the abuse-of-discretion standard. The appellate court found that the district court had relied on an incorrect legal standard by requiring “exceptionally good behavior” for early termination of supervised release. The correct standard under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) does not mandate such a threshold. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for reconsideration under the proper legal standard. The appellate court did not address Hale’s argument regarding the district court’s factual findings about his state supervision terms. View "United States v. Hale" on Justia Law

Lamont Heard, a Michigan prisoner, claimed that prison officials retaliated against him for his litigation activities by transferring him to a different housing unit. He sought to sue the officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights. Heard was transferred on January 10, 2017, and filed a grievance the next day. After exhausting his administrative remedies, he filed a lawsuit on January 19, 2021, four years and nine days after the transfer.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed Heard's claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Heard then exhausted his remedies and refiled his lawsuit. The district court dismissed the refiled claim as untimely, reasoning that Michigan's tolling provision, which pauses the statute of limitations while a claim is pending in court, conflicted with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Michigan's tolling provision does not conflict with the PLRA's exhaustion requirement. The PLRA requires prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a federal lawsuit but does not address tolling. The court emphasized that federal courts have historically borrowed state statutes of limitations and tolling provisions for § 1983 suits. The court found that Michigan's tolling rule, which pauses the statute of limitations during a prior suit, is consistent with the PLRA and does not undermine its purposes. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, allowing Heard's claim to proceed. View "Heard v. Strange" on Justia Law