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

Zachariah Histed pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The District Court for the Western District of Michigan sentenced him to 300 months' imprisonment. Histed appealed his sentence on both procedural and substantive grounds, arguing that the district court incorrectly calculated the drug quantity, wrongly applied multiple sentencing enhancements, improperly denied him credit for acceptance of responsibility, and imposed a sentence that was too long.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated Histed’s sentence, and remanded for resentencing. The Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in calculating the quantity of methamphetamine attributable to Histed because it did not adequately explain how it arrived at the drug quantity or articulate any methodology for reaching the offense level of 32. Thus, the Court of Appeals vacated Histed's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing with a more precise determination of the drug quantity attributable to Histed.However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's application of the dangerous-weapon, reckless-endangerment, and obstruction-of-justice enhancements, as well as its denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. The court found that Histed's possession of an inert grenade during his drug-trafficking offense justified the dangerous-weapon enhancement. It also held that Histed's reckless behavior during his flight from law enforcement warranted the reckless-endangerment enhancement, and his attempts to make others lie to investigators justified the obstruction-of-justice enhancement. Finally, the court held that despite Histed's guilty plea, his lack of full acceptance of responsibility for his actions justified the denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. View "United States v. Histed" on Justia Law

In this case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the plaintiff, Marketing Displays International (MDI), sued the defendant, Brianna Shaw, for allegedly violating her one-year non-compete agreement when she left MDI and began working for another company. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, preventing Shaw from working for her new employer for one year. Shaw appealed this decision in January 2023. However, due to several deadline extensions requested by both parties, the briefing did not finish until January 2024. By that time, the one-year period of the injunction had already expired, rendering the appeal moot.Shaw argued that the appeal was not moot as a ruling would impact her ability to recover any damages, including reputational harm caused by the injunction, and MDI's ability to recover attorney fees. The court disagreed, stating that Shaw could not collect damages until a final judgment is in her favor, and MDI's right to attorney fees did not depend on the validity of the preliminary injunction.Shaw also requested the court to vacate the moot portion of the preliminary injunction. However, the court refused, stating that the injunction would not have any preclusive effect on future litigation and that Shaw contributed to the appeal's mootness by requesting deadline extensions.Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as moot, and the case was remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings. View "Marketing Displays International v. Shaw" on Justia Law

In 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit examined whether a conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon under Ohio law could be considered a "crime of violence" under the federal Sentencing Guidelines, which would lead to an enhanced sentencing range. The defendant, Alexander Ivy, had pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court found that Ivy's prior conviction for aggravated robbery was a "crime of violence," resulting in an increased Guidelines range of 92 to 115 months' imprisonment instead of the likely 46 to 57 months' imprisonment without such a finding. Ivy appealed this decision.The Court of Appeals held that a conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon under Ohio law without further information that the aggravated-robbery conviction is predicated on a particular underlying theft offense is not a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines. The court found that the Ohio aggravated-robbery statute criminalizes a broader range of conduct than both robbery and extortion, making it not a crime of violence under the Guidelines. Moreover, the court found that Ohio aggravated robbery doesn't require an offender to obtain something of value from another person, making it broader than the definition of extortion under the Guidelines.Therefore, the court vacated Ivy's sentence and remanded the case back to the district court for resentencing, consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Ivy" on Justia Law

In July 2018, Brian Lawler, a pretrial detainee, committed suicide at a county jail in Hardeman County, Tennessee. Lawler's father, Jerry Lawler, brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers had been deliberately indifferent to the risk that Brian would commit suicide. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the laws in place at the time of the suicide did not clearly establish that the officers’ actions violated the Constitution. The court noted that in 2018, to hold officers liable for failing to prevent a pretrial detainee’s suicide, it was necessary to prove that the officers subjectively believed there was a strong likelihood the inmate would commit suicide. The evidence showed that the officers did not subjectively believe that Lawler was likely to take his life. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officers. View "Lawler v. Hardeman County" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was faced with the claims of Cameron Cooper, an employee with Tourette Syndrome, who sued his former employer, Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. (CCCI), under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Cooper's Tourette Syndrome caused him to involuntarily utter racist and profane words. He alleged that CCCI failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations and constructively discharged him by forcing him into an undesirable position.Cooper had been working as a delivery merchandiser for CCCI, a role which required excellent customer service. However, his condition led to complaints from customers due to his use of offensive language. CCCI attempted various accommodations, including having Cooper work alongside another employee and ultimately transferring him to a warehouse position with no customer contact. Cooper claimed that CCCI could have accommodated him by assigning him to a non-customer-facing delivery route.The court held that providing excellent customer service was an essential function of Cooper's job and, given his condition, he could not perform this function without an accommodation. The court further held that Cooper's proposed accommodation (assigning him to a non-customer-facing delivery route) was not objectively reasonable because the suggested delivery route did involve customer contact and there were no other non-customer-facing routes available at the time. Additionally, the court found that the warehouse position offered by CCCI was a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.As to the constructive discharge claim, the court held that Cooper failed to show that CCCI deliberately created intolerable working conditions with the intention of forcing him to quit. The court concluded that CCCI provided Cooper with reasonable accommodations each time he requested, thus, there was no evidence to support a constructive discharge claim.The court affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of CCCI. View "Cooper v. Dolgencorp, LLC" on Justia Law

In a case heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, plaintiff Jeffrey Hughes, an inmate in a Tennessee state prison, sued the Tennessee Board of Parole, alleging that the Board's refusal to move up his parole hearing date resulted in his overincarceration. Hughes believed that a recent change in state law entitled him to an earlier parole hearing. The Board refused his request, and he was paroled about three months after the date he believed he became eligible for release. The district court dismissed the case on the ground that the defendants, members of the Board, were absolutely immune from suit for their acts. Hughes then appealed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the members of the Tennessee Board of Parole were entitled to absolute immunity from damages suits challenging its decision on when to hold a parole hearing. The court found that the Board's decision to schedule (or not to reschedule) a parole hearing was a judicial act, akin to a judge scheduling a court hearing. As such, the defendants were acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and were entitled to absolute immunity. The court also rejected Hughes's arguments of judicial estoppel and res judicata, stating that the defendants could not have raised their immunity defense in the previous state suit and thus were not barred from raising it in the present federal suit. View "Hughes v. Duncan" on Justia Law

The case involved defendant Antwaun Allen who was found guilty of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The defendant had been involved in a police sting operation where he sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant. At sentencing, he requested a downward variance from his Guidelines range, arguing the government's role in his offense, criticizing the Guidelines' treatment of meth purity, and pointing out mitigating offense and character traits. Ultimately, he was sentenced to 108 months, at the bottom of his Guidelines range.On appeal, Allen puts forth three arguments: (1) his sentence is procedurally unreasonable as the district court failed to address the government's provocation of his offense, (2) his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court ceded its sentencing discretion to Congress, and (3) his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court relied solely on the meth's weight and purity, neglecting his "whole person."The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected all three arguments. The court held that the district court properly addressed all non-frivolous arguments raised by Allen, did not cede its discretion to Congress, and did not abuse its discretion in weighing sentencing factors. The court affirmed Allen's sentence of 108 months. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law

In a multi-district litigation involving diabetes drug saxagliptin, the plaintiffs claimed that the drug caused their heart failure. They presented a single expert to show the drug could cause heart failure. After a Daubert hearing and expert motions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the expert's testimony was unreliable due to methodological flaws and therefore excluded it. Subsequently, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, rejecting the plaintiffs' claim that other evidence created a genuine issue of material fact. The court also refused the plaintiffs' request for ninety days to find a replacement expert. On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the district court's exclusion of their expert, its grant of summary judgment, and its refusal to give them more time to find another expert witness. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions, stating that the plaintiffs' claims lacked merit. The court found that the expert's reliance on one study to the exclusion of all others was unreliable, that his use of animal data was unreliable due to his admitted lack of qualifications to analyze such studies, and that he did not reliably apply the Bradford Hill criteria - a scientific framework used to analyze whether an association between two variables is causal. The court also found that all jurisdictions require expert testimony to show general causation in complex medical cases such as this one. As the plaintiffs failed to identify a reliable general causation expert, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court also found no good cause to grant the plaintiffs more time to find a replacement expert. View "In re Onglyza (Saxagliptin) and Kombiglyze (Saxagliptin and Metformin) Products Liability Litigation" on Justia Law

The case involves Deaunta Belcher who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his participation in a murder-for-hire scheme, hindering the investigation of a federal offense, and two other offenses. Belcher appealed his conviction, arguing that his murder-for-hire conviction was invalid because the government and the court constructively amended the indictment, and therefore he was sentenced for a crime he was not charged with. He also claimed that his obstruction conviction was invalid due to the government's prejudicial variation from the indictment at trial. Lastly, Belcher argued that the district court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal on the obstruction charge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the government constructively amended Belcher's superseding indictment as to his charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a), the federal murder-for-hire statute. However, the court found that despite the constructive amendment, Belcher was not entitled to relief because he was aware from the outset that the government was pursuing an enhanced penalty under the "death results" statutory enhancement of § 1958(a).Regarding the claim of indictment variance, the court held that the government did not impermissibly vary the superseding indictment with reference to evidence uncovered at trial in response to Belcher's motions for acquittal. Thus, the court found no prejudicial variance.Lastly, the court found that the government offered sufficient evidence at trial to convict Belcher of the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) because the evidence showed that Belcher tried to deceive law enforcement from the outset by suggesting that the shooter killed the victim because he was an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). View "United States v. Belcher" on Justia Law

The case involves Indian citizens Sanket and Nehaben Patel who sued the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Ur Jaddou, under the Administrative Procedure Act for unreasonable delay in processing their applications for U visas. After their visas were granted, the Director moved to dismiss the case for mootness and attached an exhibit showing the applications' approval. The Director then realized she had not filed the exhibit under seal, violating the rule prohibiting the disclosure of information relating to noncitizens who are U visa applicants and recipients. The Patels sought civil penalties for the disclosure of their personal information. The district court dismissed the case and denied the Patels' motion for civil penalties, stating that any disclosure was not willful.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Director's disclosure of the Patels' visa application status was not "willful" under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The court reasoned that the term "willful" refers to actions that are intentional or knowing, as opposed to accidental. The court noted that the Director realized her mistake in not filing the exhibit under seal, promptly contacted the court to seal the exhibit, and the information disclosed was already revealed in the Patels’ unsealed complaint. Therefore, the disclosure was not considered willful but at most amounted to negligence. View "Patel v. Jaddou" on Justia Law