Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
PurposivismTextualism
In [4] Moore vacated district orders for failing to tie early-termination decisions explicitly to the text of § 3583(e)(1) and § 3553(a) factors rather than an extra-statutory 50% threshold. United States v. Guy Collins ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
In [6] Moore dissented from denial of en banc review to permit § 1983 method-of-execution challenges, treating state procedural bars as potential obstacles to constitutional review. Getsy v. Strickland ↗
Willing to revisit precedentStrong stare decisis
In [6] Moore supported en banc rehearing to address statute-of-limitations precedent that could bar all method-of-execution claims, indicating willingness to revisit settled procedural rules. Getsy v. Strickland ↗
Judicial activismJudicial restraint
In [4] Moore required district courts to ground supervised-release rulings strictly in statutory factors, enforcing appellate oversight without substituting its own judgment on the merits. United States v. Guy Collins ↗
In United States v. Tarek Fakhuri (part of a consolidated appeal with co-defendants Hamaed, Abdelrazzaq, and Ghussin), four pharmacists were charged with conspiring to commit healthcare and wire fraud after operating five Michigan and Ohio pharmacies that billed Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers for millions of dollars in prescriptions that were never dispensed to patients. They retained labels for unfilled prescriptions, avoided claim reversals, waived copays to boost volume, and sometimes forged signatures or substituted generics during PBM audits, leading to an estimated $13 million loss. After a jury trial, each defendant was convicted on the conspiracy count, with Fakhuri also convicted on one substantive healthcare fraud count; the district court imposed prison sentences ranging from 24 to 120 months and ordered restitution. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed all convictions and sentences, holding that the defendants had not demonstrated reversible error on constitutional, evidentiary, or sentencing grounds. The court specifically rejected Confrontation Clause challenges to expert testimony about invoice reviews, finding that the witness testified based on her own analysis of stipulated data rather than relaying testimonial hearsay from nontestifying analysts.
Denis McCormick and his company Farm2Day sued Merlo S.p.A. and its U.S. subsidiary, alleging that after Merlo ended its relationship with prior distributor AMR and began direct U.S. operations, a Merlo representative assured McCormick he could continue selling telehandlers under the same terms, but Merlo instead excluded him from the supply chain. The district court dismissed both the tortious-interference claim and the claim under Michigan’s farm-equipment dealer statute, and denied leave to amend. The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the tortious-interference claim, holding that McCormick plausibly alleged a valid business expectancy arising from the representative’s statements that Merlo would honor the prior agreement, but affirmed dismissal of the statutory claim because McCormick did not qualify as a “dealer” under the Michigan law’s definition requiring inventory ownership and service obligations. The court also upheld the denial of amendment, finding McCormick had multiple prior opportunities to supplement his pleadings but failed to do so before dismissal.
David Lynn Vannelli was charged with four federal offenses after he responded to a 13-year-old girl's online post, exchanged explicit messages and images with her, and traveled from South Carolina to Tennessee intending to meet her for sex. He entered a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement calling for a 180-month sentence, but the district court rejected it after reviewing the presentence report, which calculated a guidelines range of 324–405 months and recommended a five-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b) for engaging in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct on multiple occasions. Vannelli declined to withdraw his plea and was sentenced to 252 months. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed both the rejection of the plea agreement and the sentence, holding that the district court acted within its discretion in finding the agreed sentence inadequate and that the multiple-occasions enhancement was properly applied because the solicitation of child pornography and the interstate travel for in-person abuse occurred at different times, in different places, and were different in nature.
In United States v. Guy Collins, the defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his second and third motions for early termination of an eight-year term of supervised release following his 2011 conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. The district court had denied the motions in part by applying its customary practice of requiring defendants to complete at least half their supervised-release term, while offering varying explanations tied to deterrence and public protection under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) and the § 3553(a) factors. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in both orders. It reasoned that the court improperly treated the fifty-percent threshold as a standalone requirement rather than connecting it explicitly to statutory factors, contradicted its own prior finding that further supervision was unnecessary, and failed to justify any change in its assessment. The appeals court therefore vacated the denials and remanded for further proceedings.
The case involved Diego Andres Arateco Munoz, a Colombian citizen facing removal proceedings, who sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that affirmed an immigration judge’s denial of his application for post-conclusion voluntary departure under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review. The court held that the BIA properly considered Arateco Munoz’s two post-application convictions for driving while intoxicated when assessing his good moral character and whether to grant voluntary departure as a matter of discretion. It further reasoned that the multi-year delay in the proceedings did not render the denial fundamentally unfair, as Arateco Munoz could have avoided the convictions through lawful conduct, failed to request that his appeal remain active on the BIA docket, and suffered no independent prejudice from the timing of the decision.
Wydell Dixon was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm after officers found him with a loaded handgun during a 2020 patrol in Cleveland and sentenced to 100 months in prison based on a Guidelines range that included two extra criminal-history points for committing the offense while under state supervision. Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines later eliminated those points retroactively, making Dixon eligible for a reduced range of 78–97 months, and he moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court found him eligible but denied any reduction, determining that his criminal history, characteristics, and the need for deterrence and public protection still supported the original 100-month term. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors, including Dixon’s prior offenses and post-sentencing rehabilitation, even though the sentence exceeded the amended range.
