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

Quintin Ferguson was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment for violating 18 U.S.C. §844(i), which involves maliciously damaging or destroying property by fire or explosives. The district court classified him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1(a), which requires the current conviction and at least two prior convictions for felony drug offenses or crimes of violence. Ferguson contested that a violation of §844(i) should not be considered "arson" under §4B1.2(a)(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, initially reviewed the case. The district court concluded that §844(i) is a "crime of violence" and treated Ferguson as a career offender, leading to his 240-month sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a conviction under §844(i) qualifies as "arson" for the purposes of the career-offender guideline. The court reasoned that the definition of "generic arson" includes the intentional or malicious burning of any property, not limited to burning one's own property to collect insurance. The court affirmed the district court's classification of Ferguson as a career offender and upheld the 240-month sentence. View "United States v Ferguson" on Justia Law

Eural Black, the defendant, sought a sentence reduction under the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing the First Step Act's anti-stacking amendment. Black was serving a 40-year sentence, 30 years of which were due to stacked § 924(c) convictions. The First Step Act, passed in 2018, restricted the stacking of sentences under § 924(c), but Congress made this amendment nonretroactive. In 2024, the United States Sentencing Commission amended a policy statement to allow prisoners serving unusually long sentences to seek reductions due to changes in the law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Black's motion, relying on the Seventh Circuit's decision in United States v. Thacker, which held that the First Step Act's anti-stacking amendment is not an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. Black appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court reaffirmed its holding in Thacker, stating that the anti-stacking amendment cannot be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction, even when combined with other factors. The court found that the Sentencing Commission's policy statement in § 1B1.13(b)(6), which allowed for such consideration, exceeded its statutory authority and conflicted with the First Step Act. Consequently, the court held that Black was ineligible for a sentence reduction based on the anti-stacking amendment and affirmed the district court's decision. View "USA v Eural Black" on Justia Law

In August 2022, Jamond Rush was charged with possessing an unregistered firearm, specifically an AR-15 rifle with a 7.5-inch barrel, in violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA). Rush moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute under which he was charged was unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court's decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. The government opposed, citing the Supreme Court's earlier decision in United States v. Miller, which upheld similar regulations. The district court denied Rush's motion, holding that Bruen did not affect the constitutionality of regulating unregistered short-barreled rifles. Rush entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss, and was sentenced to 30 months in prison.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois reviewed the case and denied Rush's motion to dismiss, leading to his appeal. The court held that Rush's conduct was not protected by the Second Amendment's plain text or historical understanding.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the NFA's requirement to register certain firearms, including short-barreled rifles, is constitutional. The court relied on the precedent set by United States v. Miller, which upheld similar regulations, and found that the NFA's provisions are consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court concluded that the regulation of short-barreled rifles does not violate the Second Amendment, as these weapons are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense. The court affirmed Rush's conviction and the denial of his motion to dismiss. View "United States v. Rush" on Justia Law

Edward Gibbs was indicted in August 2018 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture. He pleaded guilty in November 2020 and was sentenced to 200 months of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. Gibbs appealed the sentence, and the case was remanded for resentencing due to a sentencing error. Before resentencing, the United States Probation Office recommended twenty-one conditions of supervised release, including conditions "m" and "r."The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, resentenced Gibbs to 180 months of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. During the resentencing hearing, Gibbs confirmed that he had reviewed the proposed conditions of supervision with his attorney and had no objections. He also waived a formal reading of the conditions. The district court entered an amended final judgment on September 1, 2023.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Gibbs argued for the first time on appeal that two conditions of his supervised release were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court determined that Gibbs had waived his objections to these conditions by affirmatively stating at the resentencing hearing that he had no objections and by waiving the formal reading of the conditions. The court held that this waiver precluded appellate review of his claims. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "USA v Gibbs" on Justia Law

Brian Gustafson was convicted of wire fraud in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He was employed as a manager at a Public Storage facility in Deerfield, Illinois, where he facilitated the theft of valuable items from a tenant's storage unit. Gustafson provided a key to John Garcia, who, along with Marilyn Rothschild, sold the stolen items. The stolen goods included antiques and artwork valued at $185,000. Garcia and Rothschild sold these items to buyers, receiving payments in cash and checks, which initiated interstate wire transfers.The district court sentenced Gustafson to twenty-four months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay $330,237 in restitution. Gustafson filed motions for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing that he did not cause the interstate wire transmissions. The district court denied these motions, concluding that while Gustafson may not have known wire transmissions would occur, their use was reasonably foreseeable given the high value of the stolen items.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Gustafson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his wire fraud conviction, prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and the restitution order. The appellate court held that the use of wires was reasonably foreseeable due to the high value and volume of the stolen items and the involvement of geographically distant buyers. The court also found that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not deprive Gustafson of a fair trial and that the restitution order did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "USA v Brian Gustafson" on Justia Law

Ralph Thompson was sentenced to 150 months in prison for distributing heroin, fentanyl, and a fentanyl analogue. The district judge noted Thompson's nine prior felony convictions and lack of reform as justification for the lengthy sentence. Thompson did not dispute the list of convictions during sentencing but later argued on appeal that one of the nine convictions was invalid.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois sentenced Thompson as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines, which requires only two prior felony convictions for drug offenses or violent crimes. Thompson did not contest having enough qualifying convictions without the disputed one. The district judge did not indicate that the difference between eight and nine convictions influenced the sentencing decision. The 150-month sentence was below the guideline range of 188 to 235 months for a career offender with an offense level of 31.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Thompson argued that his conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon should be considered void based on the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in People v. Aguilar, which invalidated the statute under the Second Amendment. However, the court found that Thompson did not suffer prejudice from the consideration of this conviction, as his sentence would not have been different without it. The court also noted that federal law, as established in Custis v. United States, does not allow a defendant to challenge the validity of a prior conviction during federal sentencing unless it was obtained without counsel. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "USA v Thompson" on Justia Law

Kevin Pettis, a convicted felon, was found guilty by a jury of illegally possessing a firearm and was sentenced to 120 months in prison by District Judge Colin S. Bruce. Pettis later discovered that Judge Bruce had engaged in ex parte communications with the U.S. Attorney’s Office while his case was pending. Pettis filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, arguing that Judge Bruce’s conduct demonstrated bias and that his counsel was ineffective.The case was reassigned to Chief District Judge Sara Darrow, who denied Pettis’s motion. Judge Darrow found that Pettis’s claims were untimely and that he did not present evidence of actual bias or extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling. Pettis appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court first addressed the government’s argument that Pettis’s appeal was moot because he had been released from prison and was serving a new sentence for violating supervised release. The court found that the appeal was not moot because Pettis was still serving a term of supervised release, which is part of his sentence.On the merits, the court held that Pettis failed to demonstrate actual bias or a substantial risk of bias by Judge Bruce that would constitute a due process violation. The court also found that Pettis’s claim under the federal recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455, was untimely and did not warrant equitable tolling. The court concluded that Pettis’s counsel’s mistakes did not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable tolling.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, denying Pettis’s motion to vacate his sentence. View "Pettis v USA" on Justia Law

Breion Woodson was convicted in Wisconsin state court on charges of firearm and drug possession and sentenced to 19 years in prison. During sentencing, the government presented a video from social media showing men with guns and drugs, which the judge used to assess Woodson's character and danger to the community. Woodson argued that he was misidentified in the video, but the judge denied his motion for a new sentencing hearing. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, stating Woodson failed to prove he was not the man in the video.Woodson then filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, introducing booking photos from the time of his sentencing that suggested he was not the man in the video. However, the district court ruled it could not consider the photos since they were not presented in state court and denied his petition, finding the state appellate court's decision reasonable based on the evidence it had.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), habeas relief is unavailable unless the state court's decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of facts. The court found that Woodson's claim was not procedurally defaulted and that the actual innocence exception did not apply to his case. The court also ruled that it could not consider the new evidence (booking photos) under AEDPA's strict limitations. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Woodson's habeas petition. View "Woodson v Mlodzik" on Justia Law

Michael Malinowski was sentenced to 150 months in prison followed by a lifetime of supervised release after pleading guilty to receiving child pornography. His release conditions included participating in sex-offender treatment, avoiding committing another crime, and not having deliberate contact with children. After moving to the Northern District of Illinois, Malinowski underwent a psychosexual assessment, leading to a recommendation that he refrain from accessing any pornography. A probation officer proposed modifying his supervised release conditions to include a prohibition on possessing or accessing any pornographic or sexually stimulating materials, which Malinowski accepted without a hearing.In 2022, Malinowski violated his supervised release by cashing a fraudulent check and failing to attend a therapy session. The district court did not revoke his release but warned him to comply with his conditions. A week later, Malinowski was found in a school with a child, violating his release conditions. The district court found him guilty of three violations and sentenced him to 12 months in prison, above the advisory range but below the statutory maximum. The court also modified his supervised release conditions, including a prohibition on possessing sexually stimulating materials and a condition barring children from entering his home.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Malinowski's 12-month sentence, finding no procedural error. However, it vacated the two challenged supervised release conditions. The court found the condition barring possession of sexually stimulating materials to be overbroad and unconstitutional, requiring revision consistent with United States v. Adkins. The court also noted a conflict between the district court's oral pronouncement and written judgment regarding the condition barring children from entering Malinowski's home, requiring correction on remand. View "United States v Malinowski" on Justia Law

Kamala McCombs pleaded guilty to two counts of drug trafficking for her involvement in a conspiracy to transport methamphetamine from Arizona to Illinois. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of 121 months of imprisonment and 60 months of supervised release. McCombs appealed, arguing she deserved a mitigating role reduction under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines because one of her co-conspirators received such a reduction.The government indicted McCombs and her co-conspirators for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute. McCombs pleaded guilty and stipulated to the conduct. The probation office calculated her offense level and recommended a two-level downward variance, resulting in a guidelines range of 121 to 151 months. McCombs objected to the probation office's determination that she was not entitled to a mitigating role reduction. The district court overruled her objection, finding she was not substantially less culpable than her co-conspirators, and sentenced her to 121 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. McCombs argued that the district court erred in not granting her a mitigating role reduction and that this resulted in an unwarranted sentencing disparity. The appellate court found that the district court correctly compared McCombs to her co-conspirators and concluded that her involvement was not substantially less than theirs. The court noted that McCombs's actions exceeded those of her co-conspirators, as she agreed to receive and transport drugs. The appellate court held that the district court's denial of the mitigating role reduction was not clearly erroneous and that the sentencing disparity was justified based on the record. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "USA v McCombs" on Justia Law