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

Debtor filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, seeking the discharge of his student loan debt as an “undue hardship,” 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8). Debtor graduated with an architectural drafting certification in 2008 and, since then, the loan has been in forbearance, deferment or an income-driven repayment plan. The U.S. Department of Education intervened as a Party-Defendant and sought dismissal or summary judgment. Debtor filed an objection, not refuting the facts alleged in the motion, but arguing undue delay. The bankruptcy court allowed Debtor to amend his complaint, which did not state sufficient facts to meet the second prong of the Brunner test: “that additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans.” Debtor filed an amended complaint with exhibits showing proof of the Debtor’s status as a parolee, but did not otherwise correct the deficiencies. The court dismissed, finding that Debtor “only [made] conclusory statements about his inability to pay, without offering facts that may support these conclusions” and that status as a parolee, alone, was not “beyond the debtor’s control” as required under the third prong of the Brunner test. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed, concluding that Debtor did not plead sufficient facts to support a discharge of his student loan debt notwithstanding the exception to discharge that would otherwise apply. View "In re Chenault" on Justia Law

Williams, a CPA, was manager or co-owner of Sexton’s Kentucky companies. Flynn was the office manager. From 2006-2010, they secured loans by misrepresenting the businesses’ assets and the identity of the true borrowers. The total amount disbursed from the banks was $8,160,400. Sexton and Williams submitted applications for higher loan amounts ($13,600,000 and $13,800,000) toward the end of the time period involved, but those funds were never disbursed. In 2016, the three and a bank loan officer were charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1349 and 18 U.S.C. 1344(1) (Count 1) and bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344(1) and 18 U.S.C. 2. The indictment also alleged forfeiture to the U.S. under 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(2)(A), and 28 U.S.C. 2461(c). Sexton pleaded guilty to Count 1. The government moved to dismiss Counts 2–24. Sexton’s PSR gave Sexton a four-level increase for being an organizer or leader under USSG 3B1.1(a); one criminal history point under USSG 4A1.1(c), 4A1.2(m), and 4A1.2(f) for a 2005 California sentence for willful infliction of corporal injury to which Sexton pleaded nolo contendere; and two criminal history points under USSG 4A1.1(d) for committing the instant offense while on probation for the California sentence. Sexton’s guideline imprisonment range was 97–121 months. The court sentenced Sexton to 109 months’ imprisonment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that sentence and orders that he pay $2,637,058.32 in restitution and forfeit property to the government, including a money judgment of $2,534,912. View "United States v. Sexton" on Justia Law

The IRS issued two “John Doe” summonses to Chase Bank without first obtaining approval in a federal district court as required by Internal Revenue Code section 7609(f), to obtain financial records relating to two limited liability companies. Those LLCs alleged that the IRS’s use of the John Doe summonses to obtain their financial records violated the Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. 3401-3422. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after determining that sovereign immunity barred the LLC’s claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, first holding that Congress intended to provide a remedy for violations in the collection of tax, but not in the assessment and determination of tax, so the LLCs do not have a monetary remedy under the Internal Revenue Code. An LLC does not fall under the Privacy Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity and the district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims. View "Hohman v. Eadie" on Justia Law

Maynard and others stole over 700 pounds of blasting agent from a Revelation Energy job site. He pled guilty to possessing an explosive as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 842(i)(1). Relying on Maynard’s prior convictions for second-degree assault under extreme emotional disturbance in Kentucky and assault during the commission of a felony in West Virginia, the Presentence Report calculated his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines as 24. Maynard argued that neither of the two underlying convictions was a “crime of violence.” The court sustained Maynard’s objection to the West Virginia offense but rejected his objection regarding the Kentucky offense and sentenced him to a below-Guidelines 108 months’ imprisonment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Guidelines label as a “crime of violence” any federal or state law offense punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another,” U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a)(1). The court applied a categorical approach and examined Kentucky’s assault under extreme emotional disturbance statute, which requires that the defendant intentionally cause a physical injury in committing the underlying assault. Extreme emotional disturbance does not negate the intent elements of first or second-degree assault under Kentucky law. View "United States v. Maynard" on Justia Law

Fleming pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), stipulating that his base offense level would be 24, based on his possession of at least 500 grams but less than 2 kilograms of cocaine. The United States Sentencing Guidelines recommended a sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment. At his sentencing hearing, the district court doubled that, based in large part on a brief local news article that described a recent surge in drug overdose deaths, mostly due to powerful opioids like fentanyl. Neither the article, nor the underlying Ohio state report on which it was based, were provided to the parties before the sentencing hearing. Nor was Fleming notified before the hearing that the court planned to consider the article or the issues it addressed. The Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence as procedurally unreasonable because the court denied Fleming a meaningful opportunity to comment on information that led to a substantial increase in his sentence. View "United States v. Fleming" on Justia Law

Upsher-Smith manufactures a generic form of amiodarone hydrochloride, which is FDA-approved as a drug of last resort for patients suffering from ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia, life-threatening heartbeat irregularities. As a generic manufacturer, Upsher-Smith is required to ensure that it includes the same labeling approved for its brand-name counterpart. 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(v), including making “Medication Guides” available for distribution to each patient with each prescription, 21 C.F.R. 208.24(b). Medication Guides explain the approved uses of a drug and its side effects “in nontechnical, understandable language.” The Guide for amiodarone warns that the drug “should only be used in adults with life-threatening heartbeat problems.” Lung damage is listed as a “serious side effect” that may continue after ceasing treatment. McDaniel sued Upsher-Smith, alleging that her husband died because he took amiodarone to treat his non-life threatening atrial fibrillation. Johnny apparently did not receive the Medication Guide when he filled his prescriptions in May and June 2015; Upsher-Smith neglected to ensure its availability. He was unaware that only adults with life-threatening heartbeat problems who had unsuccessfully sought alternative treatments should take the drug. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the failure-to-warn claims with prejudice, holding that they were impliedly preempted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. McDaniel failed to cite any Tennessee duty paralleling the federal duty to provide a Medication Guide, so the claims would not exist without the Act. View "McDaniel v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc." on Justia Law

Rhinehart, then a prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that medical providers associated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) denied him necessary treatment for his end-stage liver disease (ESLD). When he died, his brothers filed an amended complaint on behalf of his estate. The district court granted two doctors summary judgment on their Eighth Amendment claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. To establish a prison official’s deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, an inmate must show that the alleged wrongdoing was objectively harmful enough to establish a constitutional violation and that the official acted with a culpable enough state of mind, rising above gross negligence. The Rhineharts failed to establish those elements. View "Rhinehart v. Scutt" on Justia Law

Montgomery pled guilty as a felon in possession of ammunition. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment plus three years of supervised release. Months after his release the government alleged that Montgomery had been charged with domestic assault and had “possessed/used a controlled substance (marijuana).” The government recommended that Montgomery’s supervised release be revoked with a suggested imprisonment range of 21–27 months, classifying his possession offense as a Grade B violation. Montgomery failed to appear. The court ordered his arrest. The government amended its Petition, adding driving with a suspended/revoked license and theft of property less than $500. Montgomery was arrested and argued that his simple possession conviction was a Grade C violation because it is punishable by less than a year in prison, although 21 U.S.C. 844 provides for an enhanced maximum sentence of two years if the defendant has a prior drug conviction. He claimed that 21 U.S.C. 851 required the government to charge him under section 844 and enhance his sentence under section 851(a)(1) in order to take into account his prior convictions. Because Montgomery was not charged under section 844, he argued, the court could only look to the “basic” one-year sentence for simple possession when classifying his violation. The court concluded that Montgomery committed a Grade B violation and sentenced him to 21 months’ imprisonment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed; a defendant need not have been formally charged under section 844 and enhanced under section 851, because whether the defendant experienced a separate formal prosecution at all for the conduct is irrelevant. View "United States v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

In 2010, Earley applied for disability benefits, 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B) . In 2012, an ALJ rejected the application on the ground that Earley, who suffered from fibromyalgia, mild carpal tunnel syndrome, panic disorder, degenerative disk disease, and major depression, did not have a covered disability. She applied again for a new period of time. The same ALJ denied her benefits, citing Sixth Circuit precedent (Drummond) as requiring him to give preclusive effect to the work-capacity finding he had made during the first proceeding absent “new and material evidence documenting a significant change in the claimant’s condition.” The district court reversed, concluding that the Drummond “principles of res judicata” apply only when they favor an individual applicant, not the government. The Sixth Circuit disagreed. The key principles protected by Drummond—consistency between proceedings and finality with respect to resolved applications—apply to individuals and the government but do not prevent the agency from giving a fresh look to a new application containing new evidence or satisfying a new regulatory threshold that covers a new period of alleged disability while being mindful of past rulings and the record in prior proceedings. View "Earley v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

The Warden appealed the district court's conditional grant of petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 and petitioner cross-appealed the denial of relief on several alternative claims. The Sixth Circuit held that the Michigan courts adjudicated petitioner's claims on the merits, so the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) elevated standard of review applied. The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas relief based on petitioner's Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims where the state conceded that petitioner's statements to the police were obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights and the error was not harmless, and trial counsel's failure to challenge the admission of the statements constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The court also held that the prosecutor's comments on petitioner's post-Miranda silence violated due process; reversed the denial of petitioner's Doyle claim; and affirmed the district court's holding that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction. View "Hendrix v. Palmer" on Justia Law