Alice Moore Batchelder

In United States v. Moreno Jackson, II, the defendant appealed his 212-month sentence after pleading guilty to illegally possessing a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement based on Jackson’s prior convictions, imposing the 15-year mandatory minimum. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that Jackson had waived any appellate challenge by expressly acknowledging in his plea agreement and at his plea hearing that he was subject to the ACCA enhancement due to at least three prior qualifying convictions. The court found this acknowledgment, combined with his confirmation that he understood the agreement’s terms and had reviewed them with counsel, precluded review of the sentence’s procedural reasonableness. A dissent argued that one prior drug conviction no longer qualified as an ACCA predicate under intervening Supreme Court precedent, constituting plain error.

gunscriminal lawprocedure

The case arose after Linda Elam’s death at a Kentucky nursing home operated by BLC Lexington, prompting her estate’s executrix, Bonnie Townsend, to sue the facility in state court for wrongful death, negligence, and related claims. BLC Lexington responded by filing a federal action to enforce an arbitration agreement that Townsend had signed during Elam’s admission, seeking to halt the state proceedings and compel arbitration. The district court enforced the agreement as to most claims, an arbitrator ruled for BLC Lexington after a full hearing, and the district court confirmed the award; the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that Townsend’s challenge to the arbitrator’s impartiality—based on a decades-old public censure—was both untimely under the FAA and unsupported by evidence of bias, and it found no indication that the arbitrator had applied an incorrect legal standard or otherwise exceeded his authority.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

Oscar Rivera-Gaona, a Mexican citizen, overstayed a temporary agricultural worker visa in 2007 and was placed in removal proceedings in 2017. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming fear of harm from a neighbor and his family stemming from a 2004 altercation in Mexico over a romantic dispute. The immigration judge denied all relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Sixth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the asylum claim due to its untimely filing and found that substantial evidence supported the denial of withholding and CAT relief, as Rivera-Gaona failed to show a likelihood of persecution or torture, had not faced threats since leaving Mexico in 2007, and provided no credible basis for not reporting incidents to authorities. The court therefore denied the petition for review.

immigration

The case involved Terrell Lamar Williams, who was serving a term of supervised release after pleading guilty to a cocaine conspiracy. While on release, he violated its conditions by defrauding an older woman of approximately $300,000 through a fake kidnapping scheme, repeatedly faking drug tests to conceal ongoing drug use, and driving with a suspended license. The district court revoked his supervised release, imposed a 30-month prison sentence, and added a special condition barring contact with his romantic partner, who had assisted in the fraud. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the revocation and sentence were proper given the violations and that the no-contact condition was reasonably related to preventing further criminal activity, protecting the victim, and promoting public safety. The court noted that the condition allowed for future modification and did not necessarily infringe on any asserted right to marriage.

criminal law

Daniel Westerling, a former security guard at East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, sued the hospital under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that he was not paid overtime for work performed during meal periods that were automatically deducted from his paychecks. He claimed that he had to monitor his radio and remain available during those breaks, meaning they were not bona fide meal periods. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a plausible claim and denied leave to amend. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the allegations were too conclusory because merely monitoring a radio and being available to respond does not constitute compensable work during meal breaks under the FLSA, and Westerling had not properly moved to amend with a proposed complaint.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Stephen Duane Woods, Jr., the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress a pistol found during a warrantless search of his car after he was charged as a felon in possession of a firearm. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. Officers responded to a reported domestic assault in which Woods allegedly put a gun to the victim’s chest; after locating him in his orange Dodge and failing to find the weapon on his person or in the surrounding area despite reasonable searches, they had probable cause to believe evidence of the crime was in the vehicle, permitting the search under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

Amadou Sy, a Mauritanian national, entered the United States illegally and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming he faced persecution in Mauritania due to his ethnicity as a black Fulani and his participation in protests. An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied relief after finding Sy’s testimony not credible, citing inconsistencies between his written application and oral testimony—such as identical accounts of multiple arrests and the sudden addition of details about his brothers’ persecution that were absent from his earlier filings. The Sixth Circuit denied Sy’s petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility finding. The court further concluded that Sy failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution against black Fulanis in Mauritania, as the evidence showed only discrimination rather than the extreme harm required, and his personal claims had already been rejected as not credible.

immigration

Steven Saris pleaded guilty to tax evasion, operating an illegal gambling business, and money laundering after running gambling facilities in Ohio and Florida that generated over $10 million in unreported income. As part of his plea agreement, he waived most rights to appeal his sentence, with narrow exceptions only if it exceeded the statutory maximum or the top of the agreed Guidelines range. The district court imposed a 90-month prison term, which fell within the stipulated 87-to-108-month range. On appeal, Saris challenged the sentence’s reasonableness and the waiver’s enforceability, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that Saris had not shown the waiver was unknowing, involuntary, or otherwise invalid under the applicable standards, and that any ineffective-assistance claim would need to be raised in a separate post-conviction proceeding.

criminal lawtaxesprocedure

In this bankruptcy case, Phar-Mor filed for Chapter 11 and vendors including McKesson asserted reclamation claims under 11 U.S.C. § 546(c) and Ohio UCC provisions to recover goods sold on credit before the filing. Phar-Mor sold the goods during liquidation, using proceeds to repay super-priority secured DIP lenders, and sought to reclassify the reclamation claims as general unsecured claims. The bankruptcy court denied the motion and granted McKesson an administrative-expense priority claim instead, a decision affirmed by the district court and the Sixth Circuit. The court held that under the applicable version of § 546(c)(2), denial of reclamation requires granting the vendor either administrative-expense priority or a lien, and that the sale of goods to satisfy superior secured claims does not extinguish this priority. The reasoning relied on the vendor's statutory reclamation right under Ohio law, which is not defeated by secured creditors' interests during the reclamation period, and the bankruptcy code's explicit alternatives when reclamation is denied.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves plaintiffs' motion for immediate injunctive relief against Mahoning County defendants in a dispute where the City of Youngstown intervened. After a hearing on the motion that included review of an expert report and party briefs, the court took the motion under advisement. The panel instead designated Judge Polster to mediate a resolution, emphasizing that both the problem and its solution are fundamentally local and encouraging negotiations among interested parties, while preserving the case management schedule and setting a full hearing for May 2007.

procedure

This case concerns ongoing remedial proceedings in a lawsuit alleging unconstitutional conditions at the Mahoning County Jail due to overcrowding, following a 2005 bench trial finding in favor of the plaintiffs. A three-judge court was convened under the Prison Litigation Reform Act to determine whether a prisoner release order is warranted, with the City of Youngstown intervening to oppose such an order. The court held that the plaintiff class bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that crowding is the primary cause of the federal rights violations and that no other relief would remedy them. It then established a case management plan, including appointment of a court expert for fact-gathering, a site visit, and a schedule for hearings and potential settlement discussions.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Roberts v. Mahoning County, the City of Youngstown filed a motion to intervene in the ongoing proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(F). The court, in a per curiam order, granted the motion to intervene. Counsel for the city was directed to file the attached complaint in intervention electronically using the specific event label "Intervenor’s Complaint" and to submit a clean copy without prior document headers. The order provides no additional analysis beyond applying the cited federal statute authorizing intervention.

procedurecivil rights

This case concerns proceedings before a three-judge district court under 18 U.S.C. § 3626 to consider issuance of a prisoner release order related to conditions at the Mahoning County Jail. The City of Youngstown filed a motion to intervene for the limited purpose of participating in the remedial phase and opposing any such order. The court denied the motion without prejudice, holding that the City had not complied with the procedural requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c), which mandates that a motion to intervene be accompanied by a proposed pleading even when statutory standing exists under § 3626(a)(3)(F). The opinion further directed that any future intervenors must file by July 28, 2006, demonstrate authority from their entity, and specify whether they seek to challenge the liability or remedial phase of the case.

procedurecriminal law

This case is a copyright infringement action under the Copyright Act of 1976, along with related Lanham Act and state law claims, brought by author and attorney Armond Budish against Harley Gordon, Jane Daniel, and Financial Planning Institute, Inc. Budish alleged that the defendants copied tables and other content from his book 'Avoiding the Medicaid Trap,' which addresses Medicaid planning for elder law and nursing-home costs. After a hearing focused on the tables in the books at issue, the court made findings of fact regarding the parties' works, the creative selection and arrangement in Budish's book, and evidence of copying. The court concluded that Budish showed a likelihood of success on the copyright claim, irreparable harm from ongoing competition and use of his work, and that equitable factors supported granting relief. It therefore addressed the motion for a preliminary injunction by enjoining further infringement while noting options to address any related defenses like copyright misuse.

procedurehealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by animal rights organizations to the proposed interstate transfer of Timmy, a lowland gorilla, from the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo to the Bronx Zoo as part of a Species Survival Program for breeding. The plaintiffs alleged harm to Timmy, to their own monitoring interests, and to their interests as taxpayers, and sought a temporary restraining order in state court. The court removed the case to federal court, concluding that the Federal Endangered Species Act and Animal Welfare Act completely preempt state-law claims regarding interstate transportation of endangered species. It then dismissed the action for failure to state a federal claim upon which relief could be granted, as the statutes do not provide a private right of action for the alleged injuries.

environmentfederal power

The case involved a defendant charged with possessing cocaine and cocaine base with intent to distribute near an elementary school, plus possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. The defendant moved to suppress evidence seized from a warrantless police entry and search of an apartment where he was found, to disclose the identity of a confidential informant who tipped off officers, and for a bill of particulars. The court denied all motions, holding that the defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment as a non-overnight visitor and thus could not challenge the apartment search, while the personal search was justified by reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio leading to arrest and a valid Chimel search of his bag. The informant's tip and officers' observations provided sufficient basis for their actions without needing to reveal the informant's identity.

criminal lawprocedureguns

The case involved independent non-union grocery stores suing a union and its officers, alleging that the union conspired with unionized supermarkets through a wage stabilization clause in collective bargaining agreements. This clause allowed wage reductions in competitive areas unless the union picketed the non-union stores, which the plaintiffs claimed violated federal antitrust laws by aiming to eliminate competition, along with related state antitrust and tort claims. The court denied dismissal of the federal antitrust claims, finding they were not protected by statutory or nonstatutory labor exemptions to the antitrust laws. It granted dismissal of the state antitrust claims as preempted by federal law and dismissed claims against individual defendants for insufficient allegations of wrongful conduct, while denying the request to join the co-conspirator supermarkets as parties under Rule 19.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

This case involved an enforcement action by the U.S. government against Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties for alleged violations related to hazardous waste management at a structure called Bay 5 in its Cleveland, Ohio plant. The government contended that Bay 5 was a "waste pile" and thus a "land disposal facility" under EPA regulations, requiring Reilly to submit Part A and Part B closure plans, while Reilly maintained it was a "tank" exempt from those land disposal rules. The court granted summary judgment to Reilly and denied the government's motion, finding no genuine issues of material fact after reviewing the regulatory definitions, EPA guidance, and the structure's physical characteristics. Bay 5 was ruled a tank because it is a stationary device constructed primarily of non-earthen materials (steel, concrete, and wood), elevated above the ground on piers, and does not use the land as an integral part of its design or operation, placing it outside the scope of a land disposal facility.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved plaintiff Boddie suing American Broadcasting Companies for alleged violations of the Federal Wiretap Statute after defendants recorded conversations with her, along with related civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. It held that the 1986 amendment to the one-party consent exception in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), which removed the "injurious act" language, applied retroactively as a clarification, and that defendants' conduct fell within the exception because they were parties to the communications and plaintiff failed to show any criminal, tortious, or other prohibited purpose. The civil rights claims were dismissed because they depended on the wiretap violations, which the jury had already rejected in prior tort claims and which lacked an independent basis under the statute.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Mills v. United States, the plaintiffs sued to recover federal income taxes, interest, and penalties assessed after the IRS disallowed deductions for losses from Donald Mills' motorcycle racing activities in 1978-1980, which the government viewed as a hobby rather than a for-profit business under 26 U.S.C. § 183. The court ruled for the plaintiffs, holding that the expenses were fully deductible as business expenses because the activity was engaged in with an actual profit objective. The decision rested on objective facts showing Mills treated racing professionally—opening a separate bank account, consulting experts, entering prize competitions, seeking sponsors, and pursuing points-based bonuses—despite his full-time job and consistent losses, which the court found insufficient alone to disprove profit motive under the relevant tax regulations.

taxesbusiness & regulatory