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

In 2012, Raines pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The court concluded that Raines was subject to a statutory minimum term of 180 months of imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B), because he had a 1991 Michigan conviction for assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, a 2002 federal conviction for distributing cocaine base, and a 2002 federal conviction for collecting credit by extortionate means. The Sixth Circuit affirmed a sentence of 180 months of imprisonment. In 2016, Raines filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, citing Johnson v. United States (2015), which held the ACCA’s residual clause to be unconstitutionally vague. The district court rejected that argument, reasoning that Raines’s assault conviction qualified under the ACCA’s force clause, his drug-distribution conviction qualified as a serious drug offense, and his extortion conviction qualified under the ACCA’s enumerated-crimes clause. After holding that Raines’s Johnson claim was properly before the court on appeal, the Sixth Circuit vacated. Raines’s 2002 conviction under 18 U.S.C. 894(a)(1), for collecting credit by extortionate means should not have been counted as a violent felony under the ACCA because it is not covered by the use-of-force clause and it is not equivalent to the generic crime of “extortion.” View "Raines v. United States" on Justia Law

Rogers, an African-American woman, has been employed by HFHS for more than 30 years. After she was denied reclassification as a Senior Consultant, Rogers made an internal complaint of racial and age discrimination. An internal investigation found no evidence of discrimination. Rogers filed an EEOC charge. A few months later, co-workers began reporting that Rogers’s emotional state was erratic and that they feared she might pose a physical threat. Rogers was placed on paid leave and sent for a fitness-for-duty exam. After a doctor cleared Rogers for work, she claims that she was offered the choice of either transferring to an HFHS subsidiary or taking severance. Rogers chose the transfer, then filed another EEOC charge, alleging retaliation. The EEOC found probable cause. Rogers filed suit alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1981; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e; and the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for HFHS with respect to Rogers’s claims of racial and age discrimination but reversed summary judgment with respect to retaliation. Rogers did not produce evidence that she performed job duties more advanced than those covered by her job description and, therefore, was qualified for reclassification and that she was treated differently than a similarly situated person outside the protected class. A reasonable factfinder could, however, conclude that Rogers suffered materially adverse actions very close in time after an employer learns of a protected activity. View "Rogers v. Henry Ford Health System" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs each received a letter from GC, a debt collector, notifying them that their credit-card accounts had been referred for collection. The letters contained the name and address of the original creditor and stated: [I]f you do dispute all or any portion of this debt within 30 days of receiving this letter, we will obtain verification of the debt from our client and send it to you. Or, if within 30 days of receiving this letter you request the name and address of the original creditor, we will provide it to you in the event it differs from our client, Synchrony Bank. Plaintiffs assert that the letters were deficient under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692, in failing to inform Plaintiffs that GC was obligated to provide the additional debt and creditor information only if Plaintiffs disputed their debts in writing. Plaintiffs filed a purported class action. The court determined that GC’s letters created a “substantial” risk that consumers would waive important FDCPA protections by following GC’s deficient instructions, and certified a class of Kentucky and Nevada consumers, rejecting GC’s argument that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 was not satisfied because Plaintiffs had not shown that each class member had standing. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that that the alleged FDCPA violations did not constitute harm sufficiently concrete to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of standing. Plaintiffs have Article III standing. View "Macy v. GC Services Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

In 2004, Defendant was convicted for felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)(e); his statutory maximum sentence was 10 years’ imprisonment. The court sentenced Defendant to 24 years, under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), which overrode the statutory maximum and required a minimum of 15 years’ imprisonment. While incarcerated, Defendant was convicted for conspiracy to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. 846, 841(b)(1)(C); possession of heroin by an inmate, 18 U.S.C. 1791(d)(1)(C); and conspiracy, section 371, and was sentenced to an additional 151 months, to be served consecutively to his existing term. In 2015, the Supreme Court invalidated the ACCA’s residual clause and later held that the rule applies retroactively. Defendant sought resentencing under 18 U.S.C. 2255. The court found the motion meritorious, but rather than conducting a full resentencing proceeding, corrected Defendant’s sentence by memorandum opinion. Defendant had already served 12 years. His Guidelines range, absent the ACCA enhancement, was 51-63 months. Believing that a period of over-incarceration can be calculated and credited toward a consecutive sentence, Defendant asked the court to impose a Guidelines-range sentence--a specific term of months. The court instead imposed a corrected sentence of “time served.” The Sixth Circuit vacated. The district court could not lawfully impose a sentence of more than 10 years’ imprisonment; “time served” equated to a term in excess of the statutory maximum. The sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Nichols" on Justia Law

Petitioner's parents, Sunni Muslims, fled Syria before he was born to escape the al-Assad regime. Petitioner was born in Iraq and lived in Yemen. Petitioner obtained a bachelor’s degree in engineering. In 2011, Petitioner entered Turkey using a Syrian passport, obtained by his father. Petitioner's cousin, Alhaider, a U.S.-born teacher, traveled to Turkey. They became engaged. Petitioner obtained a new passport through his father, who would not divulge how he obtained it. The passport was actually a stolen blank Syrian passport, to which Petitioner’s information was added. Petitioner obtained a fiancé visa, 8 U.S.C. 1184(d), and traveled the U.S. He and Alhaider were married. Petitioner became a conditional permanent resident. DHS learned that Petitioner might have entered the U.S. using a stolen blank passport. Petitioner was charged as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(A), An IJ granted Petitioner a waiver of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(H), asylum, and withholding of removal. The BIA affirmed the grant of withholding but concluded that Petitioner was not entitled to asylum or to the waiver. The Sixth Circuit held that the Board unreasonably applied its own binding precedent, which dictates that asylum may not be denied solely due to violations of proper immigration procedures; the danger of persecution should outweigh all but the most egregious countervailing factors. Courts generally lack jurisdiction to review discretionary determinations such as the denial of a waiver but the BIA engaged in de novo review of the IJ’s factual findings, in violation of its regulatory obligation to review those findings only for clear error. View "Hussam F. v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission found that ConAg violated the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 815(c), by terminating Groves’s employment in retaliation for his reporting safety concerns to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), which enforces health and safety standards. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. A miner establishes prima facie case of discrimination by showing that he was engaging in protected activity and subject to an adverse employment action that was at least partially motivated by his protected activity. Groves engaged in a protected activity; while the ALJ did not find any direct evidence of animus or disparate treatment, she found the timing and knowledge to be persuasive. Groves made his first complaint approximately two-and-a-half months before his discharge. Groves’s meeting with the MSHA investigator occurred just five days before he was fired. The ALJ found the company’s affirmative defense implausible and the asserted reason for termination pretextual and did not impose her own business judgment on ConAg’s actions. View "Con-Ag, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor" on Justia Law

Hartman and Ott co-founded Spectrum Tool & Design and divided management responsibilities. Ott was supposed to handle the company’s payroll taxes, which required him to withhold federal taxes from employees’ wages and send the money to the IRS. When Spectrum encountered financial difficulties, however, Ott failed to pay the taxes several times in 2004 and 2005. Hartman continued to rely on Ott to pay the taxes even after discovering the delinquency. After Spectrum went bankrupt, the government sued Hartman to recover the unpaid taxes. The district court granted the government summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that Hartman “willfully” failed to pay Spectrum’s taxes. The government imposes personal liability for outstanding payroll taxes on anyone who was “required to” pay these taxes and “willfully” failed to pay the funds to the IRS, 26 U.S.C. 6672(a). Hartman acted willfully by repeatedly claiming to believe that Ott paid the taxes when he no longer had any plausible basis for thinking that was so. He knew of Ott’s past failures and had ample means to identify and remedy Ott’s misconduct. View "United States v. Hartman" on Justia Law

Artistry, a jewelry wholesaler, sells its products to retailers across the country. Sterling is the largest specialty jewelry retailer in the country. It operates in all 50 States in roughly 1,300 stores, including Kay Jewelers and Jared. Sterling began marketing a line of jewelry under the name “Artistry Diamond Collection.” Artistry accused Sterling of infringing its trademark. The district court granted Sterling summary judgment, concluding that its mark was not likely to confuse consumers in the distinct market in which it operated. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The word “artistry,” like the word “artisan,” is not an innovation when it comes to craft goods and is not likely to distinguish one product from another. The evidence suggested that at least 23 other jewelry companies used the word in some way, which diminishes the likelihood that a consumer who comes across Artistry, Ltd.’s name would think of Kay’s Artistry Diamond Collection and become confused. The companies use the marks differently: one to brand products and the other to brand a company and the wholesale services it provides. The court also noted the distinct nature of the consumers targeted by each company’s set of products. View "Sterling Jewelers, Inc. v. Artistry Ltd." on Justia Law

Cardew, a wheelchair-bound quadriplegic, had a summer internship with Lear Corporation thanks to his cousin, a Lear vice president. Over about three months, Cardew earned $5,502.75. Lear allowed Cardew a 30-hour work week, rather than the typical 40-hour week; exempted him from tasks typically assigned interns that involved traveling and from clerical tasks because of his difficulty with typing; and allowed more frequent breaks to adjust his position to avoid skin ulcers and use the restroom. Lear also paid $4,0000 to modify doors to be wheelchair-accessible. After the internship, Cardew applied for child disability benefits retroactive to age 15, when an accident rendered him, quadriplegic. Having applied after his eighteenth birthday, he had to prove that he has lived with a continuous disability since the accident. An ALJ denied Cardew’s application based on the income he received from Lear, reasoning that because Cardew’s earnings over three months exceeded a “bright line” threshold in the regulations, he had been “able to work at the substantial gainful activity level.” The Sixth Circuit vacated, finding the legal analysis incomplete and more rigid than the regulations require. Even assuming Cardew engaged in “gainful” activity, the ALJ failed to consider all the special conditions attendant to Cardew’s internship that could rebut the presumption, created by his income, that he had engaged in “substantial” activity. View "Cardew v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

Smith was confronted in her yard by McGowan and Jones, who pointed a gun. Shots were fired. Smith’s boyfriend, Goldston, ran to protect her. McGowan ran away. Goldston chased him and returned with a sawed-off shotgun. The ensuing confrontation was video-recorded by a neighbor. Goldston paced with the gun, “waving it around in a threatening manner.” Jones tried to grab the gun. When a police officer arrived, the men ran into the woods. The officer gave chase, finding a sawed-off shotgun in the woods. Goldston, charged with possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), raised a defense of justification but was convicted. The district court increased Goldston’s sentencing level for possession of an operable firearm in connection with an aggravated assault and found that Goldston was an armed career criminal,18 U.S.C. 924(e). Goldston had seven prior felony drug convictions under Tenn. Code. 39-17-417(a) involving Schedule II controlled substances: five for sale or delivery and two for possession with intent to resell. Goldston’s total offense level under the ACCA produced an advisory guideline range of 262-327 months in prison, with a mandatory minimum of 15 years. The district court, based on 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), sentenced Goldston to 240 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Goldston’s argument that he should not have been classified as an armed career criminal, as the term “deliver” in Tennessee law is broader than the term “distribute” in ACCA’s definition of “serious drug offense.” View "United States v. Goldston" on Justia Law