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

Federal agents and local police executed a search warrant at Williams’ residence and found five kilograms of marijuana, a handgun, and several scales. Williams moved to suppress, arguing that the warrant was invalid because officers presented the warrant judge with an affidavit that contained false statements and misleading omissions made with at least reckless disregard for the truth. The district court held a Franks hearing and found that the officers did not recklessly disregard the truth, and that even if they had, once the errors were removed and the omitted material included, probable cause would have remained for a search warrant to issue. Williams was convicted of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5). The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that the police were rushing to draft an application and hastily omitted both favorable and unfavorable evidence from the affidavit. The court particularly noted omission of the information from monitored calls involving Williams that was “clearly sufficient to establish probable cause.” That omission provides a reasonable basis to believe that the police did not intend to mislead. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Elkhart police responded to a report of gunfire at an apartment and were greeted at the door by an obviously intoxicated Bloch. The officers told Bloch to step outside while they checked to see if anyone was injured. The apartment belonged to Bloch’s girlfriend, who was also told to wait outside. There were no gunshot victims, but the officers located a loaded Glock handgun and an assault rifle in plain view. As the officers removed the firearms, Bloch protested that the guns were his and demanded their return. Bloch is a felon and also has a conviction for a domestic-violence misdemeanor, making his firearm possession a federal crime, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), (g)(9). While in jail awaiting trial, he told a fellow inmate that the police found his Glock and SKS rifle at his girlfriend’s apartment and that he should have hidden them better. The district court imposed consecutive sentences of 120 months and 18 months. The Seventh Circuit remanded for resentencing. The evidence was sufficient to prove possession, but a single incident of firearm possession can yield only one conviction under section 922(g), no matter how many disqualified classes the defendant belongs to or how many firearms he possessed. View "Unted States v. Bloch" on Justia Law

Johnson, sole administrator of the Shirley T. Sherrod Benefit Pension Plan and Trust, sued the Plan’s custodian, Merrill Lynch, alleging that Merrill Lynch refused to abide by his instructions and has exercised control over Plan assets by refusing to make distribution to Sherrod. The Plan is a single-participant retirement account, exempt from garnishment under the anti-alienation provision of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1056(d). There is a freeze on the account, as a result of a Michigan state court order in a post-judgment collection proceeding. The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that any harm is traceable to the state court order, not to Merrill Lynch. View "Johnson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc." on Justia Law

Under Illinois law, a candidate for the state legislature seeking placement on the general election ballot without having participated in a primary (or having replaced a candidate who did) must submit a nominating petition signed by a certain number of eligible voters. In July 2012, the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners determined that five Republican candidates for the state legislature had not collected the requisite numbers of signatures and denied their petitions to be listed on the ballot in the 2012 general election. In September the candidates and supporters sought injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that the statutory scheme violated their constitutional rights to free speech and association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed, holding that the doctrine of laches barred their claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, after holding that laches does not apply because the delay in filing suit did not impact the Board’’ ability to fashion prospective relief in future elections. The requirement that candidates seeking ballot access submit nominating petitions is reasonable and nondiscriminatory, and serves the important regulatory interests of protecting the integrity of elections from frivolous candidates and preventing voter confusion; it does not unconstitutionally burden the candidates’ and voters’ expressive and associational rights. View "Navarro v. Neal" on Justia Law

From 1996 to 2003, Harbaugh worked periodically for Chicago Public Schools as a substitute music teacher. In 2003, she was hired as a “full-time basis substitute,” and tin 2004 she was appointed to a fulltime probationary tenure-track teaching position. In 2008, the principal at Harbaugh’s school recommended against renewing her contract. The Chicago Board of Education accepted that recommendation and terminated her appointment effective at the end of the semester. Harbaugh sued, alleging violation of her due-process rights by terminating her employment without a hearing. The district court entered summary judgment for the Board. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Under Illinois law Harbaugh had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment only if she had tenure; a teacher becomes tenured at the beginning of her fifth year of full-time employment on the tenure track. Her year as a full-time-basis substitute teacher does not count toward the four-year requirement. View "Harbaugh v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago" on Justia Law

From 2005 to 2008, Collins obtained drugs from the Flores twins in Mexico. They would contact their couriers, who would deliver 20-50 kilograms of cocaine to Collins in the Chicago area, often on “credit.” Collins would sell it to his “crew” at a profit of approximately $1,500 per kilogram. The crew sold the cocaine on the streets. In 2008 the Flores twins agreed to cooperate with the Drug Enforcement Administration. As a result, Collins was indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 846. At trial, the government was allowed to play Flores’ taped conversations with Collins and to use the testimony of Officer Coleman regarding the “coded drug-dealing language” on the tapes. Collins did not object to the testimony’s admissibility at the time. Convicted, Collins was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, called for a term of 360 months to life, with an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1 because the judge determined that Collins’ conduct in the conspiracy qualified him as a “manager or supervisor.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Collins" on Justia Law

Between 2002 and 2005, May, a Chrysler pipefitter, was the target of graffiti in and around the plant’s paint department. Messages stated: “Otto Cuban Jew fag die,” “Otto Cuban good Jew is a dead Jew,” “death to the Cuban Jew,” “fuck Otto Cuban Jew fag,” “get the Cuban Jew,” and “fuck Otto Cuban Jew nigger lover.” May found death-threat notes in his toolbox, had his tires punctured, had sugar poured in the gas tanks of his cars, and found a dead bird wrapped in toilet paper to look like a Ku Klux Klansman in his work station. May contacted the police, the FBI, the Anti-Defamation League, and complained to Chrysler. Chrysler responded: The head of human resources informed employees that harassment was unacceptable, a procedure was implemented to document harassment, efforts were made to discover who was present when the incidents occurred, and a handwriting analyst was retained. The offenders were never caught. May sued Chrysler, alleging violations under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981. His hostile work environment claim survived summary judgment. A jury awarded $709,000 in compensatory damages and $3.5 million in punitive damages. May accepted remittitur to $300,000; the court vacated the award of punitive damages. On rehearing, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "May v. Chrysler Group LLC" on Justia Law

In 1996, Brown was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession of a firearm by a felon. The district court classified Brown as a “career offender” under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1. Brown filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion arguing that “counsel was ineffective for failure to object to his sentencing as a career offender which resulted in his sentence being a minimum of 360 months instead of between 262 and 327 months.” The district court rejected this argument. The Third Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. Now incarcerated in Indiana, Brown filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241, contending that under the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision, Begay v. U.S., his Delaware conviction for Arson in the Third Degree did not qualify as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1. The district court dismissed, reasoning that the savings clause in 2255(e) requires a claim of actual innocence directed to the conviction, not merely the sentence. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that challenges to a sentence are not categorically barred under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Under Begay, Brown’s prior conviction does not qualify as “generic” arson under the Guidelines’ enumerated crimes clause, nor is it covered by the residual clause. View "Brown v. Lockett" on Justia Law

In 2002, Roux moved in with Roberta and her daughters, seven to 14 years old. In 2003, CC, reported that Roux was sexually molesting her. Although the Illinois DCFS determined the charge to be unfounded, CC was removed from the household. Roux began molesting nine-year-old EV. . Roux acknowledged the abuse to Roberta in 2008 and Roberta evicted him. Roux returned and again began abusing EV. EV told school officials and the police that Roux had taken sexually explicit photographs. Investigators seized a computer and digital cameras and recovered deleted images, including sexually explicit photographs of EV and photographs of a man’s penis. No male face was visible. Roux was convicted of knowingly employing, using, persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct, using interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. 2251(a). Roux was sentenced to 360 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the admission of testimony about sexual abuse of EV’s sisters and of mug shots reflecting that Roux was heavier when arrested than at trial and based on the prosecutor’s reference to “jail phone calls” and, while cross-examining Roux, asking about records and witnesses that might corroborate his testimony but which had not been produced. View "United States v. Roux" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a Chinese citizen from Fujian Province, entered the U.S. in 1997 and is the mother of two boys born in the U.S. She sought asylum on the ground that she is likely to be forcibly sterilized if returned to China. The immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied her application on the ground that she has no well-founded fear of sterilization. The immigration judge also found that she could relocate to a part of China in which the one-child policy is not enforced as enthusiastically as in Fujian. The Seventh Circuit vacated, first noting that the 2007 petition was timely because the birth of a second child resulted in changed circumstances, 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(D). The petitioner claims that after the birth of that child, Chinese authorities, who may have learned of the birth from her parents’ customary party to celebrate it, ordered her (via a letter to her father) to report for sterilization and subsequently revoked her village registration. The court noted that forced sterilization and forced abortion in Fujian have been documented and stated that the Board has not attempted “to construct an empirical basis … for its skeptical attitude toward these applicants.” View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law