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

Officers executed three search warrants as part of a Lexington, Kentucky drug-trafficking investigation—one at Salas’s residence, one at Pedroza’s residence, and one at a trailer that the two men used for construction work. At Salas’s home, officers discovered Barron in an upstairs bedroom. Both Pedroza and Barron were indicted for drug-related crimes. Barron pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to the mandatory minimum, 10 years in prison. Pedroza was found guilty by a jury of drug and firearm charges. Their cases were consolidated on appeal. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Pedroza’s conviction. The district court properly instructed the jury regarding dual-role testimony by a detective who offered fact-witness testimony regarding the investigation and expert-witness testimony identifying a substance as cocaine without a laboratory result. The court stated that “several law enforcement officers . . . testified to both facts and opinions” and cautioned the jury to give “[e]ach type of testimony . . . proper weight.” Because Barron is entitled to safety-valve relief, U.S.S.G. 5C1.2 and 2D1.1(b)(17), the court vacated his sentence and remanded. Barron did not constructively possess the firearm found in the home and cooperated with the government. View "United States v. Pedroza" on Justia Law

Ohio H.B. 214, signed into law in 2017, prohibits any person from purposefully performing or inducing or attempting to perform or induce an abortion if the person has knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion, in whole or in part, because of a test result indicating Down Syndrome in an unborn child; a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome in an unborn child; or “any other reason to believe” that an unborn child has Down Syndrome, Ohio Rev. Code 2919.10(B). Violations constitute fourth-degree felonies. The law requires the state medical board to revoke the license of a physician who violates it and makes that physician liable for damages. The performing physician must attest in writing that he is not aware that fetal Down Syndrome is a reason for the woman’s decision to terminate. The district court ruled in favor of opponents, finding that under Supreme Court precedent, a woman is expressly and unambiguously entitled to a pre-viability right to choose whether to terminate or continue her pregnancy. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the entry of a preliminary injunction. The state’s interest in preventing discrimination does not become compelling until viability. Plaintiffs’ patients would be irreparably harmed as a matter of law by the loss of their constitutional right to seek an abortion before viability. View "Preterm-Cleveland v. Himes" on Justia Law

Officer Patterson stopped a vehicle with four passengers, including a seven-year-old. Another passenger, Owen, exited the vehicle holding a bag and attempted to flee. Patterson gave chase. Owen returned to the vehicle, retrieved a shotgun, and fired at Patterson. Patterson, who was not hit, tased Owen. Owen dropped the shotgun and attempted to flee, dropping the bag. Patterson arrested Owen and recovered the bag. An officer, trained in methamphetamine investigations, recognizing the dangers presented by the collection of items, took measures to reduce the risk of explosion. A methamphetamine task force neutralized the remaining items. Owen pleaded guilty to attempting to manufacture methamphetamine and discharging a firearm during and in furtherance of the drug trafficking offense. Owen’s base offense level was increased to 30 under USSG 2D1.1(b)(14)(D) because his methamphetamine offense created a “substantial risk of harm to the life of a minor,” then adjusted downward for accepting responsibility. His Guidelines range was 250 -282 months of imprisonment. The court determined that the quantity of chemicals was low but highly dangerous, with the potential for explosion, and that loosely storing those chemicals together and transporting them was an inherently dangerous endeavor. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Owen’s 250-month sentence, noting that any combustion would have been devastating to the minor, if not fatal. On balance, the likelihood of substantial injury to the child should the equipment combust constitutes a “substantial risk of harm to the life of a minor.” View "United States v. Owen" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued, claiming that certain Tristar pressure cookers had defective lids that could come open while the cookers were in use, exposing the user to possible injury. The district court certified three separate state classes for trial: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. During a trial recess, the parties agreed to a settlement with a nationwide class. The parties agreed to the principal amount but, with Tristar’s agreement not to dispute an award at or below $2.5 million, deferred determination of attorneys’ fees. Class members would receive a coupon to purchase a different Tristar product and a warranty extension. The court calculated the value of the coupons and warranty extensions as $1,020,985 and approved attorneys’ fees of $1,980,382.59. At a fairness hearing, Arizona made its first appearance, arguing as amicus, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, that the settlement was unfair because of the division between the principal settlement and attorneys’ fees. None of the class joined in objections to the settlement. The court indicated that it would approve the settlement. Before the court issued its order, Arizona sought to officially intervene under either Rule 24(a) Rule 24(b). The court rejected each of Arizona’s requests for lack of Article III standing. The Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal, rejecting the state’s arguments that it had standing under the parens patriae doctrine, under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1715, and because it has a participatory interest as a “repeat player.” View "Kenneth Chapman v. Tristar Products, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1996, Rizk a citizen of Lebanon, received deferred admission to the U.S. as the fiancée of a U.S. citizen, Derbass. They married in 1998. Rizk obtained conditional permanent resident status. They divorced in 2001. Rizk requested a waiver of the requirement to file a joint petition to remove the conditions on residence. An immigration officer interviewed Rizk, giving her the opportunity to submit evidence. Rizk’s statements concerning the fatherhood of her children and the whereabouts of her alleged first ex-husband, conflicted with statements made in connection with her divorce. Rizk provided no evidence to establish a shared residence with Derbass and no evidence relating to their combination of financial assets and liabilities. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services determined that theirs “was a sham marriage entered into for the primary purpose of enabling [Rizk] to evade immigration laws and to obtain immigration benefits fraudulently.” Rizk returned to Lebanon and attempted to obtain a visa. USCIS denied those petitions under 8 U.S.C. 1154(c). Rizk’s daughter (a U.S. citizen), filed a new I-130 petition (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)) on Rizk’s behalf. USCIS approved that petition without conducting interviews; the previous finding of fraud was not taken into consideration. USCIS soon discovered its mistake and revoked the approval. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that Rizk was ineligible for a visa under section 1154(c). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of her complaint. The revocation decision was not arbitrary. View "Jomaa v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2007, 18-year-old Bennett lived with her boyfriend, Benson, who physically and emotionally abused Bennett. For a time, Stephanie McClure stayed at their apartment. When she moved out, McClure took Benson’s video game console and other items. Benson began telling Bennett and their friends about his plans to shoot and kill McClure. With Bennett and another friend in the car, Benson shot McClure. Bennett was charged with first-degree murder on a theory of aiding and abetting because she had directed Benson to McClure’s trailer park, pointed her out, and then driven the getaway car. She and Benson were tried jointly, before separate juries. Both attorneys adopted a feeble theory of defense: that the police and prosecutor singlemindedly focused on Benson and failed to investigate other potential suspects. Bennett’s attorney did not highlight Bennett’s behavior that suggested she lacked the requisite mens rea: that she alerted the police about the missing items, that Bennett unnecessarily involved another in the supposed plot, and that she displayed extreme emotional distress after hearing the gunshots. Bennett’s counsel did not proffer a single defense witness. Bennett was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Bennett’s petition for habeas relief. Bennett did not initially raise her claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal. Bennett did not meet the high standard required to establish constitutionally ineffective assistance by establishing that she was prejudiced by deficient representation View "Bennett v. Brewer" on Justia Law

In 2010, Byrd, who had no criminal record, suggested that he and his girlfriend (Atkinson) rob Joiner at a bank ATM. Byrd provided the gun, but at the last minute tried to cancel the plan. Atkinson, armed, approached Joiner and demanded his money. Joiner resisted and, in a struggle with Atkinson, the gun went off. Joiner suffered a fatal wound. Atkinson returned to the car and Byrd drove away. Byrd turned himself in. The two were charged with first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, assault with intent to rob while armed, and possession of a firearm while committing a felony. Byrd was charged on a theory of aiding and abetting and, under Michigan law, was subject to the same penalties as the principal. Atkinson pled guilty to second-degree murder and received a sentence of 30-50 years in exchange for providing testimony in Byrd’s trial. Byrd’s attorney never initiated plea negotiations. Byrd, sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, sought habeas corpus relief, arguing that his counsel’s ineffectiveness deprived him of the opportunity to secure a plea deal. He argued that, based on an egregious misunderstanding of the law, his attorney conveyed to the prosecutor an unwillingness to consider a plea and conveyed to Byrd an assurance of acquittal. The Sixth Circuit granted relief, finding that Byrd’s counsel was deficient and that it is reasonably probable that, absent this incompetency, Byrd would have negotiated a better outcome. View "Byrd v. Skipper" on Justia Law

White was convicted of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, aggravated murder, attempted murder, felonious assault, and having weapons while under disability. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. As White was preparing for trial, his attorney, Armengau, was indicted by the same prosecutor’s office for serious felony offenses related to sexual misconduct, rape, and kidnapping involving his clients, relatives of his clients, and employees. White alleges that his attorney, the prosecution, and the court all failed to inform him about Armengau’s indictment or issues it might have raised regarding his representation. With newfound knowledge after his conviction, and with different counsel, White appealed, arguing constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. The Ohio court denied White’s appeal, declining to consider his ineffective-assistance claim for lack of sufficient evidence to allow the court to fully adjudicate the merits. The court issued its ruling almost four months after the deadline for White to file a post-conviction motion in state court. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction. White filed a pro se federal habeas petition. The Sixth Circuit vacated a denial of relief. Due to procedural hurdles in state court and because White did not have the aid of an attorney in his post-conviction proceedings, he had no meaningful opportunity to raise his ineffective-assistance claim. Based on Supreme Court precedent, White has cause to overcome his default. View "White v. Warden, Ross Correctional Institution" on Justia Law

The parties manufacture and sell equipment that removes water from industrial waste. Gethin founded Watermark's predecessor, “J-Parts,” after leaving his position at JWI. JWI sued Gethin and J-Parts for false designation of origin, trademark dilution, trademark infringement, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duties, breach of contract, and conversion. The parties settled. A stipulated final judgment permanently enjoined Watermark and Gethin and “their principals, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns” from using JWI’s trademarks and from “using, disclosing, or disseminating” JWI’s proprietary information. Evoqua eventually acquired JWI’s business and trade secrets, technical and business information and data, inventions, experience and expertise, other than software and patents, and JWI’s rights and obligations under its contracts, its trademarks, and its interest in litigation. Evoqua discontinued the J-MATE® product line. Watermark announced that it was releasing a sludge dryer product. Evoqua planned to reintroduce J-MATE® and expressed concerns that Watermark was violating the consent judgment and improperly using Evoqua’s trademarks. Evoqua sued, asserting copyright, trademark, and false-advertising claims and seeking to enforce the 2003 consent judgment. The district court held that the consent judgment was not assignable, so Evoqua lacked standing to enforce it and that the sales agreement unambiguously did not transfer copyrights. A jury rejected Evoqua’s false-advertising claim but found Watermark liable for trademark infringement. The Sixth Circuit vacated in part. The consent judgment is assignable and the sales agreement is ambiguous regarding copyrights. View "Evoqua Water Technologies, LLC v. M.W. Watermark, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs worked as multi-dwelling unit sales representatives for Insight, a Louisville cable, internet, and phone services provider. In 2011, Time Warner announced it was acquiring Insight. Plaintiffs claim that Time Warner induced them to stay in their jobs although developments at the company would have otherwise caused them to leave. Time Warner allegedly promised them that they would keep their positions and receive better pay. Time Warner acquired Insight in 2012, and allegedly reiterated its promises at meetings. Plaintiffs claim they were shocked to learn in October 2013 that their workforce was being cut in half and that they would need to reapply if they wished to keep their positions. Time Warner argued that Plaintiffs electronically acknowledged and accepted three different at-will employment disclaimers on or before the acquisition date and that, at an August 2013 meeting, Time Warner provided each Plaintiff a copy of a plan that overhauled how they would earn commissions. Plaintiffs each resigned and filed suit, alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel. The court excluded certain documents that Time Warner allegedly failed to timely disclose, including job offers and electronically-acknowledged at-will disclaimers. The court awarded Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs related to the motion but granted Time Warner summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment and reversed the sanctions. A party may not rely on oral representations that conflict with contrary written disclaimers that the complaining party earlier specifically acknowledged in writing. View "Bisig v. Time Warner Cable" on Justia Law