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

Troy Williams pleaded guilty to various federal offenses, including drug trafficking, firearm possession by a felon, and money laundering, and was sentenced to 198 months in prison, which was below the applicable sentencing guideline range. Williams has a history of serious medical conditions—thrombophilia and recurrent deep vein thrombosis—that require ongoing management, including regular blood testing and medication. Nearly ten years into his sentence, Williams sought compassionate release, asserting that inadequate medical care at his current facility placed him at risk of severe health complications or death.After Williams filed his pro se motion for compassionate release in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, counsel was appointed to supplement his arguments. Williams claimed the Bureau of Prisons was not providing sufficient medical care, particularly after his transfer to FCI Coleman, where he alleged infrequent blood testing and interruptions in medication. He also argued the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) favored his release. The district court reviewed his medical records and expert testimony from the prison’s clinical director, ultimately finding that Williams’s care was not so deficient as to amount to extraordinary and compelling circumstances. The district court further concluded that, even if such circumstances were present, the sentencing factors did not support early release. Williams timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion, considering legal questions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Williams’s medical care was adequate and that his situation did not present extraordinary and compelling circumstances under the relevant Sentencing Commission policy statement. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Williams’s motion for compassionate release. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Joseph Hehrer was detained in the Clinton County Jail in Michigan following charges related to operating a vehicle under the influence and a probation violation. While in custody, Hehrer began to exhibit symptoms of illness, including vomiting and abdominal pain. Over four days, jail medical staff evaluated him multiple times but failed to diagnose his underlying diabetes. Despite continued deterioration, corrections officers deferred to the medical professionals’ judgment and followed their instructions. Hehrer’s condition worsened until he was transported to a hospital, where he died from diabetic ketoacidosis.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan reviewed the estate’s claims, which included federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the county and its officers for deliberate indifference to medical needs, as well as a Monell claim for failure to train. The estate also brought state-law claims against the contracted medical provider and its staff. A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to the county and its officials on the federal claims, finding no deliberate indifference or Monell liability, and advised declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The district court adopted these recommendations and entered final judgment for the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the corrections officers acted reasonably by deferring to medical staff and did not act with deliberate indifference under the applicable Fourteenth Amendment standard. The court further held that the estate failed to show a pattern or obvious need for additional training to support Monell liability. Finally, the Sixth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims. View "Hehrer v. County of Clinton" on Justia Law

Donald Sims was serving a term of supervised release after a prior federal conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, following an earlier similar conviction. After his release from prison in 2021, Sims initially showed signs of improvement, including negative drug tests and stable employment. However, he later admitted to drug use and, in 2024, was found by police to be in possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia during a traffic stop. Sims pleaded guilty in state court to felony cocaine possession and received a nine-month sentence. His probation officer then cited him for violating his supervised release by unauthorized drug use, cocaine possession, and failure to report police contact.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio conducted a revocation hearing. Sims admitted violating his supervised release but denied ownership of the cocaine. The district court found his denial not credible, citing his guilty plea and the circumstances of the stop. Although the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was seven to thirteen months, the court imposed an 18-month sentence to run consecutive to his state sentence, citing Sims’s pattern of violations and the need for deterrence. Defense counsel objected to the upward variance.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not commit procedural error by considering Sims’s state sentence or by finding that his conduct amounted to trafficking based on the evidence. The court also found that the district court adequately explained its reasons for an above-Guidelines sentence and properly weighed the relevant sentencing factors. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the 18-month consecutive sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Sims" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of Honduras fled to the United States in 2016 after members of the MS gang targeted him and his brother, allegedly due to their refusal to join the gang. After suffering threats, extortion, and a kidnapping in Honduras, he relocated within the country but continued to receive threats. Fearing for his safety, he eventually left for the United States, where his family later joined him. He expressed fear that returning to Honduras would result in serious harm or death at the hands of the gang.Removal proceedings were initiated against him by the Department of Homeland Security, and an Immigration Judge (IJ) found him removable. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), but his asylum application was filed about fourteen months late. At his merits hearing, the IJ found his testimony credible but determined that he had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying the late filing. The IJ denied his asylum application as untimely and also denied his applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection, finding that the harm he suffered was not severe enough to constitute persecution and that he failed to show a nexus between the harm and the proposed social groups. The IJ further noted he did not demonstrate the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect him.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, determining that he had not established extraordinary circumstances for the asylum application’s untimeliness, and that he had waived his CAT claim and the issue of government protection by failing to meaningfully challenge these findings before the Board.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination regarding extraordinary circumstances under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) and found that the petitioner had forfeited the necessary government protection element for withholding of removal. The court denied the petition in part and dismissed in part. View "Osabas-Rivera v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Federal agents, while investigating a drug conspiracy in 2019, intercepted two parcels containing nearly five kilograms of methamphetamine addressed to the defendant’s residence. An undercover agent delivered these parcels, which the defendant accepted. Postal records indicated she had received seven similar parcels over several months. The defendant was arrested and indicted along with others involved in the conspiracy. Her admitted role was accepting the drug parcels and turning them over to co-conspirators.The defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. At her sentencing in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the judge considered her difficult background, resilience, and family responsibilities, ultimately imposing a sentence of 12 months, well below the guideline range of 57 to 71 months. The court granted her a delayed prison report date, but she failed to report as ordered. After her failure to surrender, she was charged with criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3), pled guilty, and was sentenced to 11 months for contempt, to run consecutively to her prior sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the contempt sentence. The court held that to determine whether contempt is a felony for sentencing purposes, the conduct underlying the contempt must be compared to analogous federal offenses. Here, the defendant’s conduct—failing to surrender for service of sentence—was identical to the felony described in 18 U.S.C. § 3146, and thus, the district court properly applied the felony guideline §2J1.6. The appellate court also found the district court’s analysis of the sentencing factors thorough and appropriate. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Owens" on Justia Law

The case concerns two decisions made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding air quality standards in the Detroit area under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Michigan sought to redesignate the Detroit area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), relying on air quality data from 2019–2021. However, in June 2022, the area recorded exceedances attributed to wildfire smoke from Canada. Michigan requested the EPA to exclude these exceptional-event data points. Meanwhile, Detroit missed its attainment deadline and was reclassified from Marginal to Moderate nonattainment, triggering additional requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) implementation.After Detroit missed its attainment deadline, the EPA finalized its determination of nonattainment and reclassified the area as Moderate nonattainment, setting deadlines for Michigan to submit RACT revisions. Michigan submitted its redesignation request before these RACT requirements became effective. The EPA later approved Michigan’s exceptional-events request and redesignated Detroit to attainment, despite Michigan not having implemented the newly required RACT measures for Moderate nonattainment areas. Sierra Club challenged both the EPA’s approval of the exceptional-event exclusion and the subsequent redesignation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed both EPA actions. The court held that the EPA’s approval of Michigan’s exceptional-event request was not arbitrary or capricious, finding that the agency had adequately explained its reasoning and considered the relevant data linking wildfire smoke to the ozone exceedances. However, the court vacated the EPA’s redesignation of Detroit to attainment, holding that the CAA requires a state to satisfy all requirements applicable at the time of redesignation, not merely those in effect when the redesignation request was submitted. Because Michigan had not met the RACT requirements by the time of redesignation, the EPA’s action was contrary to law. Thus, the approval of the exceptional-event request was affirmed, and the redesignation was vacated. View "Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

Gene Roper, a convicted sex offender, was required to register his location under the Sex Offender Registration Notification Act due to a prior conviction for attempted lewdness with a child under 14. After repeated violations of registration requirements and additional criminal conduct, including multiple failures to register, resisting arrest, and battery, Roper moved from Nevada to Tennessee without notifying authorities, resulting in his fourth failure-to-register offense. His history also included significant mental health challenges, homelessness, and substance abuse issues.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee accepted Roper’s guilty plea to the federal failure-to-register charge. At sentencing, the court imposed a 30-month prison term, which Roper did not appeal. However, the court also ordered a 20-year term of supervised release, exceeding the five-year period recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines but remaining under the statutory maximum of life. The district court justified this decision by referencing Roper’s mental health needs, criminal history, repeated noncompliance with prior supervision, and risk to public safety. The court also ordered conditions such as mental health treatment and substance abuse testing.Roper appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing that the district court erred procedurally by relying on his mental illness to lengthen his supervised release, and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The Sixth Circuit held that it was permissible for the district court to consider mental health issues as one factor among several when determining the length of supervised release. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s justification and affirmed the 20-year term, concluding that it was reasonable under the circumstances and did not violate statutory or constitutional limits. View "United States v. Roper" on Justia Law

Three citizens of El Salvador entered the United States in 2014 and were subsequently placed in removal proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security. They conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied all three forms of relief.The petitioners appealed the immigration judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), indicating their intention to file a supporting brief. Their attorney filed a notice of appearance using a post office box as her address. The BIA granted an extension to file the brief, and on the new deadline, the petitioners submitted their brief, but it listed the attorney’s physical address instead of the post office box. The BIA rejected the brief due to the address discrepancy and instructed the petitioners to file with the correct address. The petitioners re-filed the brief with the post office box address, but the BIA rejected it as untimely and required a motion for late filing. The petitioners complied, but the BIA ultimately denied their motion, finding their rationale insufficient, and later summarily dismissed the appeal because no timely brief had been filed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s actions for abuse of discretion. The court held that the BIA abused its discretion by rejecting the timely brief based on an address discrepancy that was not mandated by regulation or the BIA’s published procedures. The court further held that summarily dismissing the appeal for failure to file a brief, when a timely brief had in fact been submitted, was irrational and an unexplained departure from established policies. The Sixth Circuit granted the petition for review and reversed the BIA’s order. View "Pineda-Guerra v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A fire at a property in Washington, D.C. in 2015 resulted in the deaths of two tenants. The parents of the tenants sued both the property’s record owner, Len Salas, and his father, Max Salas, who managed the property, for wrongful death in a D.C. trial court. The jury found both defendants jointly and severally liable and awarded multimillion-dollar verdicts. After the verdict, both Len and Max filed for bankruptcy in different jurisdictions. In Max’s bankruptcy case, the court held he was entitled to an unlimited homestead exemption in the property. Subsequently, in Len’s bankruptcy case in Tennessee, the estate’s interest in certain avoidance and recovery rights under the Bankruptcy Code was sold at auction, with the plaintiffs purchasing those rights.The plaintiffs then filed an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, seeking to avoid transfers and recover property. The bankruptcy court denied their motion for summary judgment and granted partial summary judgment to Max on the fraudulent conveyance claims. Plaintiffs sought and received leave from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to pursue an interlocutory appeal. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s partial grant and denial of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, but did not certify the order for appeal or designate it as a final order.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction. The court determined that because the district court’s order was neither final nor properly certified for interlocutory appeal, it could not exercise appellate jurisdiction under the relevant statutes. As a result, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Brekelmans v. Salas" on Justia Law

An individual received health insurance through his employer, with the plan administered by a third-party insurer. After being injured in a car accident, he recovered damages from the other driver’s employer and, based on communications from his insurer and its agent, paid $25,000 in reimbursement to the plan. He later learned that the full plan document did not contain a reimbursement obligation, contrary to what was represented in the summary plan description. A similar situation occurred when his wife was injured in a separate accident; litigation in state court ultimately resulted in a declaratory judgment that the plan did not provide for reimbursement, and this was affirmed on appeal.The individual then sued the insurer, its agent, and his employer in federal court under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), alleging he was defrauded into paying reimbursement. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed most claims, but allowed one ERISA claim under § 1132(a)(3) to proceed. While his federal appeal was pending, the plaintiff filed state law claims in state court, which were removed to federal court. The district court held that these state law claims were completely preempted by ERISA and dismissed the action, reasoning that the claims were duplicative of the pending federal lawsuit and arose from the same events.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiff’s state law claims were completely preempted by ERISA under the standard articulated in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, because the claims sought relief for benefits allegedly due under the terms of an ERISA-governed plan and did not rely on a legal duty independent of ERISA or the plan. The court further concluded that dismissal, rather than remand or amendment, was appropriate due to the duplicative nature of the proceedings. View "Patterson v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc." on Justia Law