Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After the the defendants defaulted on $39 million in loans the bank began post-judgment enforcement proceedings. Defendants were "sluggish" in responding to citations and the bank learned that they had transferred about $20 million to accounts in India. The district court ordered defendants to surrender their passports pending return of the funds. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court had the power to impose a minimal seizure on the defendants until they abided by the asset production order or explained why they could not.

Employees filed a proposed class action in state court, alleging violations of the minimum wage law. The employer removed to federal court. The district court found that the employer failed to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, as required for jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1453(c)(1). The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. After the employer explained its calculations showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, in order to hold that there was no jurisdiction, the district court had to find that it was legally impossible for plaintiffs to recover that much. The employer's calculations regarding the accrual of the statutory penalty are a reasonable interpretation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law statutory language.

Defendant, affiliated with the Latin Kings street gang, sold crack cocaine, and, in 2003, pled guilty to a conspiracy charge, then fled before sentencing. He was apprehended in 2008 and pled guilty to drug conspiracy and crack distribution and was sentenced to 240 months incarceration. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. A sentencing adjustment for obstruction of justice was appropriate, even if defendant's decision to run was motivated by threats. The sentence was reasonable; the district court addressed significant mitigation arguments, considered criminal history, and considered the difference between guidelines for crack cocaine offenses and powder cocaine offenses.

After engaging in sexually explicit online conversations with agents posing as young girls, defendant was convicted of attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity (18 U.S.C. 2422(b)) and of knowingly transporting child pornography in interstate commerce (18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(1)) and sentenced to 240 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Even though the defendant took no substantial step to meet a victim, the jury was entitled to conclude that he intended to do so and that it was not "just talk." Defendant had formulated a travel plan, asked about birth control, and purchased Viagra. The district court properly admitted testimony about conversations that were not the subject of charges that included statements highly probative on the charges. Evidence of an extensive supply of pornographic images of children on defendant's computer was probative of motive and intent and demonstrated ability to transport child pornography.

In order to conceal embezzlement of $17,500, the teller and her friends staged a robbery that involved her friends presenting the teller with a note. After receiving a tip, police charged the four with robbery of $122,992, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a). Three entered guilty pleas; the other was found guilty, sentenced to 127 monthsâ imprisonment, and ordered to pay, jointly and severally with the others, $65,317 in restitution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the government failed to prove the money was taken "by force and violence, or by intimidation." The teller told her co-worker that there was a robbery in progress and the co-worker experienced reasonable fear.

A jury convicted defendant of possessing ammunition after having been convicted of a felony (18 U.S.C. 922(g)), attempting to possess with intent to distribute marijuana (21 U.S.C. 841(a), 846), and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)). The district court imposed a sentence of 21 months of imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court acted within its discretion in allowing testimony of two experts and in limiting cross-examination of a witness involved in the transaction at issue; any error was harmless.

Plaintiff, an Illinois corporation, filed suit for conversion against a corporation based in South Korea and individuals. Although the defendants were served, there was no formal response. The individual defendants sent a letter asserting that they had no connection to the corporation and requesting dismissal. Several months later the court entered default judgment in the amount of $2,916,332. About a year later the defendants filed appearances and a motion to vacate for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. After noting that jurisdiction can be contested in the original proceeding or in a collateral action, the court concluded that the motion was not untimely. The letter did not constitute an appearance by the individuals and the corporation was not capable of making a pro se appearance. The defendants have submitted affidavits concerning whether they had "minimum contacts" with Illinois that must be considered by the court.

An undercover agent purchased crack cocaine and a gun from the defendant. He agreed to participate in a sting operation, but ran from the scene with $2,000 provided by the police for the purchase. After he was arrested and charged with six counts, defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of cocaine distribution (21 U.S.C. 841) and sentenced to 96 months, significantly below the guidelines range. The government subsequently decided to prosecute the other counts. Defendant entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to 120 months, the minimum sentence for the most serious offense. The district court rejected a claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Defendant was warned, in entering his first plea, that he might be prosecuted on other counts.

The "American Bottom" is a 175-square-mile floodplain of the Mississippi River in southwestern Illinois, across the river from St. Louis and contains wetlands that provide habitat for birds, butterflies, and wildlife. The owner of a landfill in American Bottom proposed a new landfill on 180 acres of a 220-acre tract between the existing facility and a state park that contains a lake. The tract has 26.8 acres of wetlands and the owner wants to destroy 18.4 acres to obtain fill for daily cover at the existing facility while the application for a new permit is pending with the Illinois EPA. The Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit requiring creation of mitigation wetlands. The district court dismissed the conservation group's suit challenging the Corps permit for lack of standing. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Affidavits from group members, alleging that destruction of the wetlands will diminish their enjoyment of wildlife and bird-watching at the state park, were sufficient to establish standing.

Defendants, convicted of cocaine offenses and sentenced to 20 and 30 years in prison, appealed procedural rulings. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court properly rejected a motion for a continuance so that the defendant could replace his attorney, made as trial was about to begin and after jury selection. The defendant had no new basis for dissatisfaction with his fourth attorney and could have made the motion at an earlier time. While one of the judge's statements, if taken literally, prohibited one of the attorneys from discussing the substance of the case with his client and an interruption in a defendant's right to communicate with counsel is a serious error, the statement was only meant to prohibit discussion of certain impeachment evidence and any error was "inconsequential."