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

Responding to an emergency call, Gary, Indiana officers discovered and confiscated a loaded revolver in Sandidge’s residence. Because Sandidge had previously been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) prohibited him from possessing that firearm. Sandidge pled guilty. The sentencing report calculated a base offense level of 20, U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(4), based on the previous conviction for a crime of violence and recommended a four-level enhancement, U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), because Sandidge used or possessed the firearm “in connection with another felony offense.” During the incident, Sandidge had pointed the loaded revolver at another person, a felony violation of Indiana law. The report recommended a three- level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, for an offense level of 21. Sandidge had 10 criminal history points, and a consequent criminal history category of V. The report calculated a Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months’ imprisonment. The court sentenced Sandidge to 92 months’ incarceration, to be served consecutively with his undischarged state sentence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed imposition of the “in connection with another felony” enhancement, denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, and the imposition of a consecutive sentence. The court vacated conditions of supervised release. View "United States v. Sandidge" on Justia Law

While Johnson was on probation for a conviction for second degree assault of a child, his probation officers discovered more than 3,000 photos on Johnson’s phone. Most of the photos were sexually explicit and the officer believed several of the individuals pictured may have been minors. They also received a tip from an individual who reported that Johnson had a Facebook account and was posting ads on Craigslist. Johnson pleaded guilty to production of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2251(a), and possession of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B). At sentencing, the parties disputed whether several photographs showing Johnson’s 12-year-old victim inserting foreign objects into her vagina were sadistic or masochistic, U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(4). The court found that one of the photographs warranted the four level upward adjustment for sadistic or masochistic images and imposed a sentence of 240 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. An image of a young girl inserting a screwdriver into her vagina connotes a degree of potential pain and violence such that the upward adjustment under is appropriate. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In 2004, Thurman, a drug dealer, attempted to bribe four Maywood police officers. They reported the attempt to the State’s Attorney. That Office also learned that an individual arrested by Maywood police had stated that Thurman had officers on his payroll. An undercover sting, “Operation Pocket Change,” began with the officers pretending to be dirty cops and accepting from Thurman weekly payments of $1,200. Monitoring Thurman’s cell phone (with a warrant), revealed numerous contacts between Thurman and Officer Wade, resulting in a wiretap. The team agreed to announce, at a roll call at which Wade was present, that officers should stay clear of an area in which Thurman’s dealers were known to sell. In intercepted telephone calls, Wade warned Thurman that “Granny’s house was hot.” Wade claims that he did not hear the announcement, but made up the tip in an attempt to turn Thurman into a confidential informant. A search of Wade’s home computer uncovered a fraudulent arrest warrant for Thurman. Thurman later stated that Wade helped him rob a supplier by pretending to arrest him and seizing the drugs, using the fake warrant. A jury acquitted Wade, who sued the village and the officers for equal protection violations and malicious prosecution. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Probable cause supported his prosecution. Wade cannot succeed by reframing the claim as a class-of-one equal protection claim. The court noted Wade’s failure to identify a similarly-situated individual who was treated more favorably. View "Wade v. Collier" on Justia Law

An Illinois state trooper pulled over a vehicle driven by Helsene. Although it was December, Helsene was transporting two kayaks on top of his vehicle, which raised the trooper’s suspicion. After a K-9 unit detected the presence of narcotics near the top of the vehicle, the trooper searched the kayaks and discovered approximately 145 pounds of marijuana hidden inside. Helsene was arrested and agreed to participate in a controlled delivery of the marijuana to an individual in Philadelphia. Helsene told authorities that he had received instructions from Clarke, the source of the marijuana, to travel to New Jersey to collect $50,000 from Pereira. Helsene called Pereira and instructed him to “go where [he] went the last time.” With law enforcement close behind, Helsene met with Pereira, who handed him a toolbox containing $41,000. The agents arrested Pereira. After a months-long investigation, Pereira, Clarke, Helsene and Pereira’s brother were charged with conspiring to knowingly and intentionally distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 100 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 846. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Pereira’s conviction, rejecting an argument that the government proved only the existence of a buyer-seller relationship, which was insufficient to prove involvement in a drug-distribution conspiracy. View "United States v. Pereira" on Justia Law

Kipp, an Illinois resident, purchased a chairlift ticket at Devil’s Head Ski Resort in Merrimac, Wisconsin. He claims that as a result of the “unreasonably fast speed” of the lift in the boarding area, he was injured (broken collarbone) as he was attempting to board it. After allowing Kipp to conduct limited discovery, the Illinois district court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, noting that the defendant’s only offices are in Wisconsin. The company does not engage in print or broadcast advertising in Illinois, but it does attend a trade show that takes place in Chicago every year. At the show, Ski Enterprise representatives speak with potential customers and obtain their email addresses. The company later sends out “email E blasts” to those contacts. There is also a website, through which customers can reserve rooms at the resort; they cannot purchase lift tickets on the site. The resort offers a vacation package called the “Chicagoland Express,” but the package is not limited to Illinois residents. Approximately 60 to 75 percent of the resort’s clients are from Illinois. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, describing defendant’s contacts with Illinois as insubstantial and episodic. View "Kipp v. Ski Enter. Corp." on Justia Law

Ramirez, a courier and bookkeeper in an Indianapolis methamphetamine distribution ring, was arrested minutes after she left a stash house carrying five pounds of meth worth more than $100,000. A search of the house yielded two handguns. Ramirez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 or more grams of meth, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 846, but at sentencing claimed to have been unaware that her coconspirators possessed guns. The court found that the coconspirators’ firearm possession was reasonably foreseeable to her and increased the offense level by two levels for possession of a dangerous weapon, U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1). The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that she could not have reasonably foreseen that her coconspirators possessed guns and that she was eligible for a two-level reduction in her offense level under the so-called “safety valve” for nonviolent first-time drug offenders. Ramirez had important roles in a sizable drug enterprise; it was not clear error to attribute the coconspirators’ gun possession to her. Possession of a firearm in connection with the offense generally disqualifies the defendant from receiving safety valve consideration. Whether that applies to liability for a coconspirator’s gun possession was a question of first impression that Ramirez failed to raise in the district court. View "United States v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

In 1997 Corcoran shot and killed four men at his Fort Wayne home. A jury convicted him of four counts of murder. The trial judge imposed a death sentence. After unsuccessful state court appeals, Corcoran sought federal habeas relief, arguing that the trial judge impermissibly relied on nonstatutory aggravating factors and failed to consider mitigating evidence when deciding whether to impose the death penalty. The district court rejected the claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court noted the deference owed to state-court factual findings under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2) and held that upheld the Indiana Supreme Court holding that the trial judge did not rely on nonstatutory aggravating factors. The state court reasonably determined that the trial judge considered all proffered evidence in mitigation: Corcoran’s age at the time of the crimes (22) and his good behavior in prison. The obligation to consider mitigating evidence in a capital case does not require that the evidence be credited or given any particular weight in the final sentencing decision. View "Corcoran v. Neal" on Justia Law

Most federal employees receive health benefits through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Until the 2010 enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and their staff members, were eligible for FEHBP insurance. The ACA limited their options to plans created under the ACA or offered through a health insurance exchange established under the ACA; they could no longer receive insurance through the FEHBP (42 U.S.C. 18032(d)(3)(D)). The Office of Personnel Management conducted notice-and-comment rulemaking and issued the final rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 60653-01. Senator Johnson and his legislative counsel sought to enjoin implementation of that rule, which, they claimed, was contrary to the ACA and other law because it allows the government to make pre-tax employer contributions to non-FEHBP plans and makes members of Congress and their staffs eligible for an ACA insurance exchange reserved for small businesses. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, finding that the plaintiffs had not identified a judicially cognizable injury that is traceable to aspects of the OPM regulation that they challenge. The court noted that the challenged regulation creates a benefit for Senator Johnson and that he is free to decline that benefit. View "Johnson v. United States Office of Pers. Mgmt." on Justia Law

Rhodes was charged with two counts of kidnapping. He retained Kovac. A jury acquitted him on one count; a different jury convicted him on the other. Rhodes appealed, claiming that Kovac had rendered ineffective assistance. The case was remanded, based on a problem with the jury. The court appointed a public defender, Kaiser. About two months before the trial was to begin, Kaiser moved to end his appointment. Rhodes wanted to represent himself. The court held a hearing and warned Rhodes, at length, about the dangers of self-representation. Kovac , who was present, said that he believed Rhodes was not engaging in gamesmanship or building a record for appeal, but that Rhodes had not retained him. After receiving a waiver, the judge granted Rhodes’s request. During the weeks that followed, there were several requests for additional time. It was not clear whether Kovac was representing Rhodes. The judge eventually told Rhodes he could not “have it both ways,” refused to grant an adjournment, and denied motions for standby counsel. The jury convicted Rhodes of kidnapping and aggravated battery. Wisconsin courts rejected his appeal. The federal district court granted habeas relief. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Neither of the state courts’ reasons for rejecting Rhodes’s last-minute request for counsel was unreasonable. View "Rhodes v. Dittmann" on Justia Law

Doe, a minor female, was drinking in a group at an apartment complex in Arlington Heights and Mount Prospect. A site manager called 911. Three males began moving Doe to a secluded area. She was so intoxicated that they had to hold her up. Arlington Heights Officer Del Boccio arrived, talked to the males, allowed them to leave with Doe without asking for identification, and left the scene. One of the three, Balodimas, was on probation for armed robbery; Doe and the other males were minors. Del Boccio reported that the subjects were gone on arrival. The three males then carried Doe into a laundry room. When the site manager observed this, he again called 911. Mount Prospect police responded and caught Balodimas sexually assaulting Doe. Doe sued Del Boccio and Arlington Heights, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state claims. The district court dismissed and denied Doe’s motion to amend her complaint to allege that Del Boccio was a racist who wanted harm to come to her because she was a white girl socializing with African-Americans. Doe referred to an incident when Del Boccio, operating an unmarked police car, ran over and killed an eight-year-old African-American boy and lied to cover it up. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Del Boccio did not create the danger, nor did he do anything to make the danger to Doe worse. View "Doe v. Vill. of Arlington Heights" on Justia Law