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

In 2008-2009 Scalzo was a bank officer at two institutions. He originated and approved loans for unqualified borrowers without adequate financial information or collateral. He forged borrowers’ signatures, redirected funds from the loans to his own personal use without the knowledge of the borrowers, and took funds from some fraudulent loans to pay off balances on previous fraudulent loans, to conceal the original fraud. Scalzo pled guilty to one count of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344, and one count of money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1956. The Information listed as part of the scheme six bank loans and three Credit Union loans. Scalzo objected to inclusion of two Credit Union loans in the restitution order. The sentencing range was the same with or without these loans, so the court deferred ruling on restitution and sentenced Scalzo to 35 months of imprisonment. The government filed its additional brief a week later. Having received no additional briefing from Scalzo for 82 days, the court relied on the PSR, the plea agreement and the government’s additional submissions; found that Scalzo arranged the Credit Union loans to conceal the bank fraud; noted that the Credit Union loans were listed as part of the fraudulent scheme detailed in the Information to which Scalzo pled guilty and that the Credit Union lost a substantial amount of money; and ordered him to pay restitution of $679,737.23. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "United States v. Scalzo" on Justia Law

Ramirez, a citizen of Guatemala, was admitted to the U.S. as a permanent resident in 1977, then seven years old. He has remained in the U.S. After three years of high school, he joined the Marine Corps. He later obtained his GED, attended community college, and received certification to become an optical technician. He has been consistently employed as an adult. He lives with his fiancé, who suffers from lupus and Sjögren’s syndrome and is unable to work, and their son, born in 2003. Ramirez’s mother, siblings, grandmother, and uncles live in the U.S. In 1990 he: was convicted of inflicting corporal injury upon a spouse or cohabitant and sentenced to 79 days in jail; received a bad conduct discharge from the military for writing bad checks and was sentenced to 90 days’ incarceration; and pled guilty to committing a lewd and lascivious act with a child under the age of 14, received a sentence of six years’ imprisonment and relinquished parental rights to his daughter, the victim’s half-sister. Ramirez was last convicted in 1990. He has, however, been questioned or arrested multiple times since then. An immigration judge found Ramirez “credible” at a hearing requesting discretionary relief from removal, but relied on uncorroborated arrest reports to find that Ramirez failed to show “rehabilitation.” The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit granted a petition for review, stating that the BIA erred by failing to follow its own binding precedent.View "Avila-Ramirez v. Holder" on Justia Law

The herbicide atrazine is banned in the European Union but widely used in the U.S. Municipalities and water boards charged with filtering public drinking supplies sued Syngenta, which manufactures and distributes the chemical. Those claims were settled. During discovery Syngenta produced many documents. Two environmental groups intervened to assert that the public is entitled to see them. In a flawed attempt to comply with a protective order shielding discovery materials, plaintiffs had filed a response to Syngenta’s motion to dismiss and its exhibits under seal, but the protective order did not apply to materials filed in connection with a dispositive motion. The district court eventually unsealed 123 of the exhibits, preserving the seal on 242 that are either legitimately confidential or had not been cited in plaintiffs’ papers. Having decided not to read these documents, the judge observed that they could not have affected his decision and held that they need not be disclosed to the public. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 and 28 U.S.C.636(b)(2) permit the appointment of special masters to sort through swollen filings and identify material that does not belong in the record. The district judge in this case appropriately referred to a magistrate judge the question whether some documents, properly in the record, are legitimately confidential. View "City of Greenville v. Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC" on Justia Law

Davis, a nurse and assistant professor of nursing at Chicago State University, ran several public health programs aimed at improving the health care of the African-American community. As program director for the Chicago Chapter of the National Black Nurses Association (CCBNA), Davis solicited and oversaw public and private grants, contracts, and funds awarded to CCBNA. Between December 2005 and March 2009, Davis solicited and obtained contracts and grants totaling approximately $1,062,000 from Illinois state agencies. Davis diverted approximately $377,000 by writing checks to herself, friends, and family members; concealing conflicts of interest; hiring unqualified family members and other acquaintances for positions in projects; forging co-signatures; and falsifying information. Davis pleaded guilty to mail fraud and money laundering. In the plea agreement, the parties concurred that based on the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. 3553, Davis could be sentenced to, and the government would recommend, no higher than a below-guidelines sentence of 41 months’ imprisonment. The advisory guidelines range was 57–71 months. Davis waived the right to appeal the reasonableness of the sentence but reserved the right to challenge any procedural error at sentencing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim that the district court erred procedurally by failing to adequately take into account her mental health in considering mitigating factors. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Two nurses, formerly employed by Momence, alleged that, during their employment at Momence, they uncovered evidence that Momence knowingly submitted "thousands of false claims to the Medicare and Medicaid programs” in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA) and Illinois Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act. They filed a qui tam action on behalf of the government and alleged that Momence retaliated against them for reporting its fraud. A jury awarded the government more than $3 million in compensatory damages and imposed about $19 million in fines for the qui tam claims. Pursuant to the FCA, the compensatory damages were trebled to more than $9 million. The district court set aside the fines as violating the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The jury also awarded the nurses $150,000 and $262,320, respectively, on their retaliation claims. The Seventh Circuit vacated. Both claims failed as a matter of law. Rejecting claims of “worthless services” and false certification, the court stated that, at best, a reasonable jury might be able to say that some of Momence’s claims were false, but that is not enough to satisfy the burden of proof. The employment of one nurse was not terminated, the other’s employment was terminated for an unrelated matter.View "Absher v. Momence Meadows Nursing Ctr., Inc." on Justia Law

On the way into a Milwaukee store, Banks’s associate Warren asked him to hold a revolver. Banks put it in his waistband. Once inside, Warren negotiated the sale of the guns for $1,000 to an undercover ATF agent who was posing as a store employee. Warren took the revolver from Banks and handed it to the buyer. Banks and Warren then offered to sell crack cocaine. The agent said he had money only for the guns but that he would purchase the crack the next day. Banks and Warren returned and sold the agent one ounce of what turned out to be fake crack cocaine. Banks pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), and was sentenced to three years in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the sentencing report correctly calculated that Banks had an offense level of 17 and a criminal history category of III after a reduction of three levels for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a sentencing range of 30 to 37 months. Although the judge could have been clearer, the transcript indicated that he considered Banks’s mitigation argument but found it was out-weighed by the seriousness of the offense and Banks’s criminal history. The sentence was not substantively unreasonable.View "United States v. Banks" on Justia Law

Vance, Marshall, and Bluford were charged with two 2007 Chicago bank robberies, 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), and related crimes, such as conspiring to rob the banks. Vance also was charged with killing a person during the commission of a bank robbery. Marshall and Bluford, but not Vance, pleaded guilty. Marshall testified at Vance’s trial. The jury convicted Vance, and the judge sentenced him to consecutive terms of seven and 25 years, plus life in prison for the killing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges concerning alleged “propensity” evidence, testimony about DNA evidence, testimony by a teller who identified Vance, and the sentence. View "United States v. Vance" on Justia Law

An MRI had revealed plaintiff’s herniated disc in 1998. The medical record is blank from then until 2007, when she complained to an emergency room physician that she had been suffering from lower-back pain. She mentioned the herniated disc, and was prescribed Vicodin. Almost a year later she was examined by an anesthesiologist who specializes in pain management, who prescribed Lyrica. The plaintiff subsequently sought disability benefits and testified that her pain, combined with the drowsiness induced by the pain medication, limited her daily activities to eating, caring for her dogs, taking naps, and watching television. The anesthesiologist opined that the plaintiff was “unable to work” because of “lumbar disc protrusion.” Another anesthesiologist reviewed her records, and concluded that she was able to work full time despite the diagnoses of lumber disk herniation, lumbar radiculopathy, and myofascial pain, and a Social Security field officer’s observation that “she had a hard time sitting in the chair during the interview.” He did not identify evidence supporting his conclusion. The district court affirmed the agency’s denial of benefits. The Seventh Circuit remanded, stating that the plaintiff deserves a more careful evaluation than she has received to date. The ALJ’s critical error was failure to obtain a medical report on the results of a 2010 MRI.View "Goins v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Former employees of an Indiana city sued the mayor and the city under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that the mayor had fired them because of their political affiliations, in violation of their First Amendment rights. The mayor responded that political affiliation was a permissible qualification for their jobs. The district judge granted summary judgment in favor of the mayor with respect to nine of the 11 plaintiffs, on the ground that his argument concerning political qualification for their jobs was sufficiently arguable to entitle him to qualified immunity, but declined to certify interlocutory appeal with respect to the other two plaintiffs. The Seventh Circuit stayed proceedings pending interlocutory appeal of the issue of qualified immunity, reasoning that whether a job is one for which political affiliation is a permissible criterion presents a question of law. Qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation. The privilege is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.View "Allman v. Smith" on Justia Law

Petkus owns a property that she operated as an animal sanctuary until 2009, when an investigation by the ASPCA resulted in a search of her property, termination of her employment as Richland County dogcatcher, her arrest and prosecution for animal neglect, and a sentence to three years of probation. As authorized by Wis. Stat. 173.10, the ASPCA investigator procured a warrant to search Petkus’s property. The warrant directed law enforcement officers to enlist in the search veterinarians or any “other persons or agencies authorized by the Richland County District Attorney.” The veterinary and 40-50 animal-rights volunteers who accompanied deputy sheriffs conducted the search. They had not been deputized. The deputy sheriffs’ role was not to participate in the search but simply to “keep the peace.” Petkus sued, alleging negligence in failing to train or supervise the amateur searchers and that the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Petkus won an award of damages. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting needless damage to Petkus’s property and that the “incompetence of the amateur searchers is apparent from the reports of the deputy sheriffs.” View "Petkus v. Richland Cnty" on Justia Law