Ransey Guy Cole jr

In this case, three defendants affiliated with the MS-13 gang—Jorge Flores, Kevin Tidwell, and Jose Pineda-Caceres—were charged with multiple federal offenses, including RICO conspiracy to participate in racketeering activity, conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, and murder in aid of racketeering, based on their alleged roles in several shootings and killings in Tennessee between 2014 and 2021. After an 18-day joint trial, a jury convicted them, and the district court imposed lengthy sentences, including life imprisonment plus additional years for Flores and Tidwell. On appeal, the defendants raised various challenges, such as Flores contesting the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a protective sweep, Tidwell objecting to aspects of voir dire, expert testimony, co-conspirator statements, and the sufficiency of the evidence, and Pineda-Caceres arguing that the exclusion of two witnesses violated his rights. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences in full, holding that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, that the evidence was sufficient, and that any potential issues were either harmless or did not warrant reversal.

criminal law

In Daniel Grady v. John Cratsenburg, the plaintiffs alleged that officers John Cratsenburg and Austin Pearson arrested them in retaliation for protected speech during a late-night shooting investigation in Michigan, after the Gradys approached officers’ perimeter around a suspected shooter’s home, refused repeated commands to step back, and loudly questioned the officers’ authority. The district court found probable cause for the arrests under Michigan law but allowed the First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim to proceed under the narrow exception recognized in Nieves v. Bartlett, citing other onlookers who were not arrested. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the cited onlookers were not similarly situated because they stayed well outside the perimeter and did not defy officers’ commands, while the Gradys had done both. Without objective evidence meeting the Nieves exception, the general rule that probable cause defeats such claims applied, and the court remanded for further proceedings.

free speechcivil rightscriminal lawprocedure

Anthony Camarca sued the City of Covington Police Department and several officers after an early-morning hotel lobby disturbance following a family wedding, during which his intoxicated wife and sister-in-law fought, prompting a 911 call. Camarca was arrested after he ignored officers’ instructions to remain in place, directed profanity at them, and attempted to lead his wife away; he alleged federal constitutional claims including unlawful seizure, excessive force, and equal protection violations, plus related state-law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the officers had at least reasonable suspicion to detain Camarca and used reasonable force to subdue him after he physically resisted, that no similarly situated individuals were treated differently for equal-protection purposes, and that the city faced no Monell liability absent an underlying constitutional violation. The state-law claims likewise failed because they depended on the unsuccessful federal claims.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

Eugene Fishback was convicted by a federal jury in the Eastern District of Kentucky on multiple counts of drug distribution after evidence showed he bought roughly 150,000 fentanyl-laced pills from a supplier over several years and resold them, with additional seizures of fentanyl, carfentanil, and firearms linked to properties he used. The district court imposed a 480-month sentence, applying several Sentencing Guidelines enhancements. On appeal, Fishback challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the district court’s application of enhancements for drug quantity, possession of firearms, obstruction of justice, and other factors. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the trial evidence—including repeated drug recoveries tied directly to Fishback, witness testimony, and surveillance—was sufficient for a rational jury to convict, and that the district court did not clearly err in applying the Guidelines based on the facts presented.

criminal lawguns

Walters & Mason Retail, Inc., a clothing retailer operating stores nationwide, purchased a commercial insurance policy from Hartford Fire Insurance Company and later sought coverage for business-interruption losses after closing or restricting operations due to COVID-19-related government orders. Hartford denied the claims, leading Walters & Mason to sue for breach of contract and bad faith in federal court in Pennsylvania; the case was transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding no coverage under either Tennessee or Pennsylvania law, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The appeals court held that Walters & Mason forfeited its argument for applying the laws of all twenty-two states where it suffered losses, as well as its contention that it should prevail under Tennessee law, by failing to properly raise or preserve those issues on appeal. The court also noted that the policy’s virus exclusion unambiguously barred coverage for losses caused by the spread of COVID-19.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Joshua Elswick sued Deputy Ryan Derrough under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming excessive force and deliberate indifference after Derrough used a low-output GLOVE compliance device to shock him several times on the arm during booking at a Kentucky jail. Elswick had been arrested following a domestic dispute, was intoxicated and combative due to his mental health conditions, and resisted efforts to remove his restraints while expressing paranoia that officers intended to kill him. The district court granted summary judgment to Derrough, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the limited GLOVE shocks were a reasonable response to Elswick’s active resistance after de-escalation attempts failed, and that Derrough was not deliberately indifferent because he twice involved a nurse for evaluation and Elswick had access to potable water that he chose not to drink.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Chapell Dain Cissell, the defendant, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to six counts of unlawful firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after officers found him carrying three loaded firearms while wearing a ballistic vest, plus additional guns, magazines, and nearly 200 rounds of ammunition at his home. The district court calculated a Guidelines range of 151–188 months but imposed the statutory maximum of 120 months, after reviewing Cissell’s psychological evaluation, family letters, and testimony, and recommending mental health treatment and drug programming. Cissell appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally unreasonable for allegedly overlooking § 3553(a) factors and substantively unreasonable for over-weighting his criminal history. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding no procedural error because the district court explicitly considered his mental health issues, family support, and other factors, and no substantive error because the within-Guidelines, statutory-maximum sentence was entitled to a presumption of reasonableness that Cissell did not overcome.

gunscriminal law

Eric Kelsey Shepherd pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of enticing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for visual depiction, after being caught recording sexual acts with a 12-year-old. The district court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 360 months to life, imposed the statutory maximum of 600 months, and ordered it to run consecutive to a 10-year state sentence Shepherd was already serving for assaulting another minor. Shepherd appealed, claiming procedural errors in the Guidelines calculation and the failure to consider running the federal sentence concurrent with a pending related state case involving the same victim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that plain-error review applied because the district court properly asked the Bostic question after sentencing, and Shepherd failed to show any clear or obvious error on either claim.

criminal lawprocedure

Carlotta Collins, a longtime City of Detroit employee in the Water and Sewerage Department, sued the city and two supervisors for race and sex discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment, later adding claims after her termination for further retaliation and violation of Michigan’s Whistleblower Protection Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Collins failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, did not demonstrate that the city’s stated reasons for firing her—unauthorized remote work, misrepresenting hours worked, and leaving early without permission—were pretextual, and forfeited her hostile-work-environment and WPA claims by failing to develop supporting arguments in her opening brief. The court also rejected Collins’s Seventh Amendment challenge to summary judgment as foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.

civil rightslabor & employment

In United States v. Udell Carroll, III, the defendant was stopped for speeding, admitted possessing marijuana, and officers found additional drugs and a firearm during a search; he was indicted on federal firearm and drug-trafficking charges. After electing to proceed pro se, Carroll repeatedly sought Criminal Justice Act funds under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1) to hire an investigator, asserting that body-camera footage of the stop had been altered to remove five minutes, and he also requested an evidentiary hearing on the funding motion. The district court denied the requests, finding them insufficiently supported. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Carroll’s motions contained only general assertions of need without specifying how an investigator would aid his defense or identifying contested facts that required a hearing, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.

criminal lawgunsprocedure