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

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

Riccardi, a postal employee, pleaded guilty to stealing 1,505 gift cards from the mail. The cards had an average value of about $35, a total value of about $47,000. The Sentencing Guidelines directed an increase in Riccardi’s guidelines range based on the amount of the “loss,” U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1) but does not define “loss.” The court used a $500 minimum loss amount for each gift card no matter its actual value or the victim’s actual harm, based on the Sentencing Commission’s commentary to section 2B1.1, providing that the loss “shall be not less than $500” for each “unauthorized access device." The calculation resulted in a loss amount of $752,500, and a guidelines range of 46-57 months’ imprisonment. The court imposed a 56-month sentence and ordered Riccardi to pay $89,102 in restitution, representing $42,102 in cash found at her home and the value of the gift cards.The Sixth Circuit reversed. Guidelines commentary may only interpret, not add to, the guidelines; even if there is some ambiguity in the use of the word “loss,” the commentary’s bright-line rule requiring a $500 loss amount for every gift card does not fall “within the zone of ambiguity.” This bright-line rule is not a reasonable interpretation of, as opposed to an improper expansion beyond, section 2B1.1’s text. View "United States v. Riccardi" on Justia Law

Kentucky Governor Beshear’s COVID-19 response included a “Mass Gathering Order” that prevented groups of more than 10 people from assembling for purposes including community, civic, public, leisure, faith-based, or sporting events; parades; concerts; festivals; conventions; fundraisers; and similar activities.” Locations permitted to operate normally included airports, bus and train stations, medical facilities, libraries, shopping centers, or "other spaces where persons may be in transit” and “typical office environments, factories, or retail or grocery stores.” The ban on faith-based gatherings was enjoined in previous litigation.Plaintiffs alleged that the Order, facially and as applied, violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. While Governor Beshear threatened the plaintiffs with prosecution for holding a mass gathering at the state capitol to express their opposition to his COVID-19-related restrictions, he welcomed a large group of Black Lives Matter protestors to the capitol and addressed those protestors, despite their violation of the Order. The district court preliminarily enjoined the Order's enforcement. Governor Beshear withdrew the Order. The Sixth Circuit held that the withdrawal rendered the appeal moot. To the extent that the plaintiffs claim that a threat of prosecution for their past violations keeps the case alive, the court remanded for the district court to determine whether further relief is proper. View "Ramsek v. Beshear" on Justia Law

Braden and Strong used the Tennessee state courts to resolve the dissolution of their business partnership. During that process, Strong believed she was the victim of legal malpractice. She hired the Parrish Law Firm to represent her in a lawsuit against her original attorney. Strong’s malpractice case was later dismissed when the Parrish Firm did not comply with discovery deadlines. Strong assigned some of her rights in the partnership dissolution action to the Parrish Firm for costs and expenses in the malpractice action. When the Parrish Firm sued to recover $116,316 under the assignment, Strong filed counterclaims, which were resolved in state court. A jury awarded Strong $2,293,878.70. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed. The Firm filed suit in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment, alleging that the Tennessee Court of Appeals judges made false statements in a judicial opinion violating its rights to a “fair trial” under the Due Process Clause and “to access justice” under the Equal Protection Clause. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit and directed the Firm and its counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be assessed. The suit is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; the complaint essentially sought another round of state appellate review. The complaint failed to present a justiciable case or controversy. Federal courts “are not in the business of pronouncing that past actions which have no demonstrable continuing effect were right or wrong.” View "Larry E. Parrish, P.C. v. Bennett" on Justia Law