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

After not paying taxes for several years and creating shell corporations to receive his income, the defendant, a commodities trader, entered a guilty plea to one count of tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. 7201. The district court calculated an offense level of 21, carrying a range of 37-46 months' imprisonment under the sentencing guidelines and imposed a 24 month sentence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Rejecting an argument that the government breached the plea agreement, the court reasoned that both parties understood that the losses stated in that agreement remained uncertain and open to recalculation. The record supported the tax losses upon which the sentence was based. Application of an enhancement for use of "sophisticated means" was appropriate.

The defendant accompanied a friend buying drugs and supplied more than $5,000 of the purchase price. He was arrested and charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances (21 U.S.C. 846) and attempted possession with intent to distribute controlled substances (21 U.S.C. 846, 18 U.S.C. 2 ). Defendant agreed to testify against his friend and entered a guilty plea on the attempted possession charges and aiding and abetting. The district court found that defendant's crime involved 7 kilograms of cocaine and 135 pounds of marijuana and concluded that sect. 841(b) required a minimum sentence of 120 months' imprisonment, but suggested it would have imposed a shorter sentence if not for the statutory minimum. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that defendant had no basis for disputing the amount of drugs involved. The court rejected an argument that there were two transactions planned and that defendant only intended to purchase marijuana, noting defendant's guilty plea on aiding and abetting.

Plaintiff, employed by the department of public works since 1972, publicly criticized the city's decision to purchase a certain brand of tractor and indicated that board members were influenced to purchase the more-expensive tractors by having been taken on an expenses-paid visit to the company's plant. A letter was published in the local paper and the board ultimately changed its decision. After the debate, the plaintiff's subordinates were promoted over him and his applications for promotion were denied. The district court rejected First Amendment retaliation claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the plaintiff made his public comments in the context of performing his job. When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.

Nurses sued their former employer, a privately-operated jail, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and 42 U.S.C. 1981, alleging racial discrimination and hostile work environment. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the employer. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The record concerning plaintiffs' allegations about references to monkeys and skin color, clothing marked by the confederate flag, and disparate treatment, was insufficient to establish a triable issue of hostile environment. With respect to other claims of discrimination, the plaintiffs did not establish a materially adverse employment action. State law whistleblower claims failed because the plaintiffs failed to allege violation of federal, state, or local law or misuse of public resources.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives revoked a Wisconsin pawn and gun shop's license to sell firearms after it rejected an appeal from a finding that the shop willfully violated record keeping requirements of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. 923. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed. The appropriate standard for willfulness for revoking a firearms dealerâs license is purposeful disregard of, or plain indifference to, a known legal obligation; the dealer had notice of those obligations and disregarded them. The infrequency of errors, compared to the number of transactions, does not disprove willfulness.

Defendant was convicted of attempted murder of another inmate (18 U.S.C. 113(a)) and sentenced to life in prison. At trial, he argued misidentification. On appeal, he argued that the court should have insisted on an entrapment defense. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that it can never be error for a district judge to permit defense counsel to omit an entrapment defense. Rejecting an argument that putting a member of a rival gang in the same cell as defendant compelled him to attack and should be equated to governmental inducement, the court stated that proper prison management requires scattering members of different gangs. The court stated that it was "nonplussed" that the attorneys considered this argument.

One defendant was a research assistant for one of the plaintiffs, an engineering professor, when the professor developed a mathematical model of how electrons behave under certain circumstances. The assistant switched to a different research group without returning a notebook. The plaintiff-professor retained a new assistant, who continued the work and shared some of her material with the defendant. The defendants submitted a symposium paper and an article, describing the model and its applications. The district court rejected copyright claims and state law claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the materials were not protected by the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 102(b) because the model is an idea. The Act protects the expression of ideas, but exempts the ideas themselves from protection; the equation, figures and text are the only ways to express this idea, and, under the merger doctrine, these expressions are not copyrightable. Because state law conversion and fraud claims were the equivalent to assertions under the Act, those claims are preempted. A claim of trade secret misappropriation could not survive on the merits.

Defendant, convicted five times of felonies--murder, attempted murder (twice), aggravated battery, and domestic battery--and several times of other offenses, including unlawfully possessing firearms, participated in a shoot-out in 2009 and was prosecuted for unlawful possession of a firearm. The district court declined to sentence him as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), which carries a 15-year minimum term, reasoning that four of the five convictions could not count. When defendant's parole on murder and aggravated battery convictions expired, officials sent him a letter saying that his civil rights to vote and hold office had been restored automatically. The letter did not state that Illinois does not restore the right to possess firearms. The Seventh Circuit remanded, holding that the defendant had three countable felonies. The letter's inclusion of a date on which parole ended ties the letter to a single sentence and implies that rights have been restored only with respect to convictions underlying that sentence. Defendant did not receive such letters for other convictions.

The employee developed bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome while working at a supermarket, then worked as a greeter until she was laid off in 2003 because she was unable to perform the job. She subsequently started and left a dental hygiene, radiology technology, and electroencephalography training programs because of problems related to her hands and vision. At age 45 she had an extensive medical history, including fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease, bilateral mild ulnar neuropathy, and multiple eye surgeries with dry eye syndrome. In 2008 an ALJ rejected her claim for social security disability benefits. The appeals council denied review and the district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the ALJ failed to acknowledge a physician report contrary to her conclusion and to explain the weight she gave that opinion, but stating that remand would serve no purpose in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the denial.

The defendant entered a plea of guilty to bank robbery charges in 2003 and was sentenced to 170 months as a career criminal because of two prior escape convictions under Wisconsin law involving failure to return to custody. The district court denied a motion to vacate the sentence, holding that decisions by the Supreme Court in 2008 and 2009 did not apply retroactively to a petition for collateral relief. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that sentencing as a career criminal was improper and violated the defendant's due process rights. The predicate offenses did not constitute crimes of violence and the designation deprived the defendant of a protected liberty interest. The Supreme Court decisions were not just a change in the law, but addressed the fundamental legality of the sentence.