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

Silvestre-Gregorio, then age 16, entered the U.S. illegally in 2001. He was detained within weeks. At his removal hearing, he did not have an attorney but was assisted by an interpreter and a social worker. The interpreter spoke Spanish; Silvestre-Gregorio spoke little English and some Spanish; his native tongue was a regional dialect of Guatemala. He answered open-ended questions in Spanish, including where he was born and how he crossed the border. The IJ had to repeat some questions and explained to Silvestre-Gregorio his ability to appeal and his right to be represented by retained counsel. The IJ asked several times whether he would like time to find an attorney. Silvestre-Gregorio declined, saying that he wanted to finish his case that day. Silvestre-Gregorio was removed from the U.S. in June 2001. Silvestre-Gregorio returned to the U.S. in 2002. He accumulated convictions for domestic assault, public intoxication, theft, DUI, and driving without a license.In 2018, he was charged with unlawful reentry of a removed alien, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a). Silvestre-Gregorio argued that his 2001 removal violated his right to due process and could not be the basis for a section 1326 conviction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. Silvestre-Gregorio could understand the interpreter during his removal hearing and did not have a constitutional right to government-provided counsel or to be notified of discretionary relief (voluntary removal). View "United States v. Silvestre-Gregorio" on Justia Law

In 1971, Perna was hired by Health One, a federally-insured, Michigan-chartered credit union. Perna signed an employment agreement with an arbitration clause; it was set to expire in 2015. In 2014, the state concluded that Health One was operating in an “unsafe and unsound condition. The federal National Credit Union Administration Board was appointed as Health One’s liquidator and terminated Perna’s employment, 12 U.S.C. 1787(c)(1). The Board sold Health One’s assets.Perna sought unpaid benefits. The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs dismissed Perna’s claim, citing the arbitration clause. Perna then submitted a claim to the Board under the claims-processing rules that apply when the Board acts as a credit union’s liquidating agent. 12 U.S.C. 1787(b)(5). The Board denied his claim as untimely under its notice to creditors. In 2018, Perna filed a claim for unpaid wages with the American Arbitration Association. Health One and the National Credit Union Administration refused to participate. The arbitrator found that Perna's firing was “without cause” and awarded him $315,645.02 but found that this decision could bind only Health One, not the Administration.Perna sued Health One and the Administration, seeking to confirm the award and make the Administration subject to it. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Federal Credit Union Act provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction over” claims against covered credit unions asserted outside its exclusive framework, 12 U.S.C. 1787(b)(13)(D). View "Perna v. Health One Credit Union" on Justia Law

In 2013, Henry was convicted of three counts of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), and three counts of using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 924(c), each related to the associated bank robbery count. A defendant’s first 924(c) conviction then carried a minimum sentence of five years’ incarceration; each additional 924(c) conviction carried a 25-year sentence, even if the convictions were part of the same indictment. Henry was sentenced to 730 months’ incarceration: 70 months for each bank robbery, to be served concurrently and 60 months for the first 924(c) count and 300 months each for the second and third counts, each to be served consecutively. Following a remand, the court sentenced Henry to 738 months’ incarceration.The Sixth Circuit remanded for resentencing, citing the Supreme Court’s 2017 “Dean” decision, permitting courts to consider mandatory-minimum sentences imposed under section 924(c) when determining the sentence for other counts. Congress passed the First Step Act, under which only a defendant who has a prior final 924(c) conviction is subject to the escalating mandatory-minimum sentences, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(C)). Henry argued that the 2018 remand meant that the court had not imposed a sentence before its enactment so that he could benefit from the amendment and have a total mandatory-minimum sentence of 15 years. The district court sentenced Henry to 60 months for the bank robberies plus 55 years under 924(c). The Sixth Circuit reversed. The language of the limited remand in Henry’s case requires the district court to revisit the sentences for his 924(c) convictions and to resentence him in accordance with the First Step Act. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

Donovan received from FirstCredit a letter demanding payment of a purported medical debt. The letter's envelope had two transparent glassine windows on its face, taking up most of the left half of the envelope. Because the letter, when folded, is smaller than the envelope, the text visible through the windows depends in part on where the letter is sitting within the envelope. No matter how the letter is situated, Donovan’s name and address are always visible as is an empty checkbox followed by the phrase “Payment in full is enclosed.” Sometimes, a second empty checkbox followed by “I need to discuss this further. My phone number is _____,” is visible. Donovan alleged that the visibility of the checkboxes and the accompanying language created the risk that anyone who saw her mail would recognize that she was receiving mail from a debt collector, seeing relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692. The district court granted FirstCredit judgment.The Sixth Circuit reversed. Donovan has standing. Her injury is “particularized” and “actual.” The letter that caused her injury was addressed and sent to Donovan specifically. The statute does not include a “benign language exception” and unambiguously prohibits the use of language or symbols on debt collectors’ envelopes, excepting language or symbols to ensure the successful delivery of the communication, the collector’s address, and the collector’s “business name,” if the name does not indicate the debt collection business. View "Donovan v. FirstCredit, Inc." on Justia Law

Mahaffey and another were arrested at the Cincinnati Airport for suspected drug trafficking. Each possessed luggage containing about 40 pounds of vacuum-sealed marijuana. Hidden within one of Mahaffey’s marijuana parcels was four pounds of methamphetamine. They were charged under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846 with conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, and possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. The government did not establish that Mahaffey knew about the methamphetamine. A jury convicted him of all counts and attributed to him 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine. The district court then imposed a mandatory-minimum sentence of 10 years.The Sixth Circuit affirmed, upholding its precedent that a drug-trafficking conviction under section 841 does not require proof that the defendant knew the type or quantity of controlled substance involved in the offense. The Supreme Court’s 2019 “Rehaif” holding did not abrogate that precedent. Rehaif involved possession of firearms; its scienter focus is not a new legal development or a fit for section 841. It is not unusual to punish individuals for the unintended consequence of their unlawful acts. Mahaffey knew that his planned conduct was wrongful. That he did not appreciate the exact consequences of his predetermined criminal conduct, that it “involved” large amounts of methamphetamine under section 841(b)(1), makes no difference for purposes of his decision to unlawfully possess a controlled substance with the intent to distribute. View "United States v. Mahaffey" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs attended licensed Michigan cosmetology schools, each of which includes a clinic salon where students work toward the state’s 965-hour practical experience requirement. The salons are open to the public. Customers pay for beauty services provided by students and can purchase products available in the salon. The schools profit from the salons. Students are not compensated for their time. When not working on clients, students wash and fold towels, clean the studio, and perform other janitorial jobs. Students receive academic credit for the time spent on such tasks.The plaintiffs sued, seeking compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment, holding that they were owed compensation for certain cleaning work. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court properly focused on the specific work for which plaintiffs seek compensation, rather than on the entirety of the training program, but failed to correctly apply circuit precedent governing FLSA claims in an educational setting. On remand, the court must apply the primary-beneficiary test. Where students in a training environment seek compensation for some of the work they perform during the educational relationship, the court should consider that the students received academic credit and should evaluate the relationship between the challenged activities and the curriculum. Among the specific factors to be considered: the lack of expectation of payment; the educational value of the tasks under scrutiny; the displacement of paid employees, and the school’s competitive benefit. View "Eberline v. Douglas J. Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Theriot drove the vehicle from which Matthews shot an AK-47, killing a pregnant woman and injuring three others. Theriot admitted to getting the gun, which he illegally owned. One witness testified that Theriot made the decisions on where to go that night and intentionally drove his truck to the house and slowed down when he drove by. After the shooting, Theriot wiped the gun clean of prints; he was the last person seen with the gun. He urged witnesses to lie for him.In a Michigan state court trial, a jury convicted Theriot of second-degree murder, three counts of assault with intent to commit murder, assault of a pregnant individual causing death to fetus, and felony-firearm, The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. The Michigan Supreme Court denied Theriot leave to appeal.In a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, Theriot argued that the state trial court violated his constitutional rights when it prohibited him from questioning witnesses about his demeanor after the shooting (allegedly violating his right to present a defense and his right to confrontation) and prohibited him from admitting jailhouse telephone call recording excerpts into evidence (allegedly violating his right to present a defense). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief without reaching the merits. Theriot procedurally defaulted his claims and did not persuade the court to excuse his default. View "Theriot v. Vashaw" on Justia Law

Hale, employed by Morgan Stanley since 1984, was disciplined on several occasions between 2013 and 2016. Hale initiated an arbitration action and requested damages for his claims of negligence, defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Following a four-day hearing, the arbitrator issued an award denying all of Hale’s claims. Hale filed suit, requesting that the arbitration award be vacated pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1. The district court dismissed, holding that it lacked diversity and federal question jurisdiction over the suit.The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. There is complete diversity of citizenship between the disputing parties as required by 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) and the amount in controversy is met because Hale requested a damages award of $14.75 million in his complaint (filed as a motion to vacate). In actions where a party seeks to vacate a $0 arbitration award pursuant to section 10 of the FAA, courts should look to the complaint, including the amount sought in the underlying arbitration, for purposes of assessing whether the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement has been met. View "Hale v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC" on Justia Law

Conti attended the University of Michigan, 1999-2003, obtaining a bachelor’s degree in musical arts. Conti obtained private loans from Citibank totaling $76,049. Conti’s loan applications are all expressly “[f]or students attending 4-year colleges and universities.” They request information regarding the school’s identity and the academic year and specify that the student may “borrow up to the full cost of education less any financial aid.” The applications include a section where the school financial aid office can certify the applicant’s year, enrollment status, and recommended disbursement dates. Each application incorporates by reference an attached promissory note, stating that “the proceeds of this loan are to be used for specific educational expenses.” Citibank apparently disbursed each loan to Michigan directly. None of the loan amounts exceeded the cost of attendance at Michigan for the relevant enrollment period minus the maximum sum of Conti's federal Pell grant for the same period. In 2011-2016, Conti made payments on the loans, which were assigned to Arrowood.In 2017, Conti filed for voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing the Citibank loans as dischargeable. Conti filed an adversary proceeding seeking to determine that they were not excepted “qualified education loan[s]” under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8). The bankruptcy court granted Arrowood summary judgment. The district court and Sixth Circuit affirmed. The plain language of the loan documents demonstrated they were qualified education loans. View "Conti v. Arrowood Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

In 2003, Clabo underwent surgery to correct pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Clabo’s doctor implanted her with a TVT transvaginal mesh sling device that the Defendants manufactured. By 2006, she began experiencing pelvic pain, urinary issues, scarring, and pain during sexual intercourse. After being notified by her doctor that the mesh from her device had eroded through her vaginal canal, Clabo had a procedure in April 2006 to remove the TVT implant. A month later, Clabo had surgery to implant a mesh sling similar to the one she had removed. In 2011, Clabo had another surgery to have pieces of her second implant removed and other parts repaired, again due to mesh erosion. Clabo alleges that it was not until July 2012 that she finally realized, after speaking with a physician-friend, that the TVT mesh product was the likely cause of her persistent pain and suffering.In May 2013, Clabo filed suit under the Tennessee Products Liability Act. The court dismissed Clabo’s claims as barred by Tennessee’s statute of repose, which prohibits product liability claims brought more than six years after the date of the injury that gave rise to the suit, finding that Clabo’s initial injury occurred during 2006. The Sixth Circuit affirmed; the record demonstrates that Clabo’s injuries occurred outside of the statute of repose period. View "Clabo v. Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc." on Justia Law