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

Richard Walker was arrested at his girlfriend Ramona Paulette's residence, where he was staying overnight. Officers conducted a protective sweep of the residence and found a loaded firearm under the mattress in Walker Jr.'s bedroom. Later, with consent from Paulette's mother, Laverne Shipp, officers conducted a second search and found drugs in Paulette's bedroom. Walker was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the searches violated the Fourth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied Walker's motion to suppress, finding the protective sweep and subsequent search justified. Walker entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. He was sentenced to 51 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Walker argued that the firearm and drugs were discovered through an unconstitutional search. The court found that Walker had standing to challenge the search and that the protective sweep was unlawful in scope when officers lifted the mattress in Walker Jr.'s bedroom. The court also determined that the district court erred in applying the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule and did not address the inevitable discovery exception.The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Walker's suppression motion and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the inevitable discovery exception applied and to reassess whether Shipp's consent justified the second search. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, an illegal alien, was arrested in Chicago after firing a pistol at passing cars during a period of civil unrest. He was indicted for possessing a firearm as an illegal alien under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). Carbajal-Flores moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute violated his Second Amendment rights. The district court denied his initial motion but reconsidered after the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which established a new framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges.The district court ultimately found § 922(g)(5)(A) facially constitutional but held it unconstitutional as applied to Carbajal-Flores, reasoning that historical traditions only supported disarming untrustworthy or dangerous individuals, and Carbajal-Flores did not fit that description. The government appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Second Amendment's protections do not extend to illegal aliens, as historical evidence shows a consistent tradition of disarming individuals who have not sworn allegiance to the sovereign. The court found that § 922(g)(5)(A) aligns with this tradition, as it only disarms illegal aliens who have not taken an oath of allegiance. The court concluded that the statute is constitutional both on its face and as applied to Carbajal-Flores, reversing the district court's decision and remanding the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Carbajal-Flores" on Justia Law

Law enforcement conducted a warrant-backed search of an apartment occupied by Tyrone Fulwiley and Deandre Maxwell, uncovering firearms, cocaine, and drug distribution paraphernalia. Maxwell pleaded guilty to charges of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm by a felon. Fulwiley went to trial and was convicted on all counts by a jury. Both defendants challenged the search, the denial of a Franks hearing, and the refusal to reveal the identity of the confidential informant. Fulwiley also contested the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied the defendants' motions to suppress evidence, for a Franks hearing, and to reveal the informant's identity. Fulwiley's motion for a judgment of acquittal was also denied. Maxwell pleaded guilty, while Fulwiley was convicted by a jury based on evidence including testimony from law enforcement and a forensic expert linking him to the drugs and firearms found in the apartment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, given the detailed and corroborated information provided by the confidential informant. The court also found no error in the denial of a Franks hearing, as the defendants failed to make a substantial preliminary showing of a material falsity or omission in the warrant affidavit. Additionally, the court upheld the decision not to reveal the informant's identity, as the informant was deemed a mere tipster and not essential to the defense. Finally, the court found sufficient evidence to support Fulwiley's convictions, including his constructive possession of the drugs and firearms and the nexus between the firearms and drug trafficking activities. View "United States v. Maxwell" on Justia Law

Malcolm Wilson, an inmate at Indiana State Prison, was involved in an altercation where he grabbed another inmate's cane to defend himself, causing the other inmate to fall and require medical attention. Wilson was charged with battery and, after a disciplinary hearing conducted by Lieutenant Angelita Castaneda, was found guilty. Castaneda imposed a sentence that included 90 days in restrictive housing, a demotion in credit class, and up to $100,000 in restitution for medical costs.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana dismissed Wilson's pro se complaint at the screening stage under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the restitution order. Wilson's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Wilson appealed the dismissal, arguing that the restitution amount was not supported by any evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo, accepting the factual allegations in Wilson's complaint as true. The court found that the evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing, including Wilson's statements, video footage, and staff conduct reports, constituted "some evidence" to support the restitution order. The court held that the procedural requirements of due process were met, as Wilson received notice of the charges, an opportunity to defend himself, and a written statement of the evidence and reasons for the disciplinary action. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Wilson received the process he was due. View "Wilson v. Castaneda" on Justia Law

Nicholas Karagianis was indicted on federal drug and firearm charges and later entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to all counts. The plea agreement stipulated a final offense level of 31 under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. However, the presentence report (PSR) recommended a final offense level of 33 due to an additional two-level firearm enhancement. The district court adopted the PSR’s recommendation and imposed a below-guideline sentence. Karagianis subsequently sent a letter to the court, claiming he was misled by his counsel about how his sentence would be calculated.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana conducted a combined change-of-plea and sentencing hearing. During the hearing, the court confirmed that Karagianis understood the plea agreement and its terms, including that the court was not bound by the stipulations in the agreement. The court adopted the PSR’s recommendation of a final offense level of 33 and imposed a sentence of 168 months for Counts 1 and 2, and 120 months for Count 3, to be served concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Karagianis raised three arguments on appeal: that he entered his guilty plea unknowingly due to the district court’s failure to inform him about the waiver of his right to appeal an adverse ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion, that the court did not explain the impact of the PSR on sentencing, and that the government breached the plea agreement by not objecting to the PSR’s recommended offense level. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding no plain error in the district court’s actions and concluding that any potential breach by the government did not affect Karagianis’s substantial rights or the fairness of the judicial proceedings. View "United States v. Karagianis" on Justia Law

Pierre Robinson and Derrick Swanson, members of the Evans Mob gang in Chicago, were charged with murdering rival gang members to enhance their status within the gang. Swanson entered a cooperation agreement and pleaded guilty, while Robinson went to trial. At Robinson's trial, his cousin Anise, who had previously identified him as the shooter in a recorded statement and grand jury testimony, claimed memory loss and could not identify him in court. The district court admitted her prior statements as evidence. Robinson was convicted by a jury after a four-day trial.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Robinson was convicted of murder in aid of racketeering and sentenced to life in prison. Swanson, who cooperated with the government, received a 30-year sentence and five years of supervised release. Swanson's sentence included a condition allowing probation officers to search his workplace, which he contested as inconsistent with the oral pronouncement of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Robinson argued that the admission of Anise's statements violated his Confrontation Clause rights and that his trial counsel was ineffective. The court held that Robinson had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine Anise, thus satisfying the Confrontation Clause. The court also found that Robinson's counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. Swanson's challenge to his supervised release condition was rejected, as the written judgment did not contradict the oral pronouncement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgments. View "United States v. Swanson" on Justia Law

Michael Lairy petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that he did not qualify for the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (ACCA) mandatory 15-year sentence and that his counsel was ineffective for not raising this issue. The government did not address the merits of Lairy’s claims but argued that they were raised after the statute of limitations had expired. The district court denied his petition, rejecting Lairy’s arguments that the government forfeited the statute of limitations defense, that he was actually innocent of ACCA, and that he was entitled to equitable tolling.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana held that Lairy’s petition was untimely and that the government did not forfeit the statute of limitations defense. The court also found that Lairy’s claim of actual innocence did not apply because it was a legal, not factual, argument. Additionally, the court denied Lairy’s request for equitable tolling without conducting an evidentiary hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court’s evaluation of forfeiture and actual innocence. However, the appellate court found that the district court abused its discretion by rejecting equitable tolling without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Seventh Circuit vacated the denial of the petition and remanded the case to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on equitable tolling. The court affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "Lairy v. United States" on Justia Law

Brian Fenner and Dennis Birkley were convicted of seventeen counts related to a fraud scheme involving the manipulation of Indiana’s mechanic’s lien statute. Fenner, who ran a towing company, and Birkley, who financed the operation, conspired to inflate the value of mechanic’s liens on vehicles and conducted sham auctions to obtain clean titles, which they then sold for profit. The scheme involved towing vehicles from across the country to Indiana, inflating lien values, and holding fake auctions at unreasonable hours to ensure no legitimate buyers attended. Birkley would then falsely claim to have purchased the vehicles at these auctions and apply for clean titles, which extinguished the creditors' interests.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana convicted both defendants on all counts. Fenner and Birkley were sentenced to 70 and 60 months in prison, respectively, and ordered to pay $49,045.84 in restitution. Fenner and Birkley appealed, arguing that the district court made several errors, including allowing improper testimony and violating Fenner’s Sixth Amendment rights by admitting Birkley’s unredacted statement to law enforcement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. The court held that the testimony of the government witnesses was proper and that any potential errors were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court also found no plain error in the admission of Birkley’s statement, as it was consistent with Fenner’s defense and did not significantly impact the jury’s verdict. Additionally, the court rejected Birkley’s ex post facto argument and upheld the restitution calculation, finding it supported by the evidence.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences of Fenner and Birkley. View "United States v. Birkley" on Justia Law

Dana Curtin was convicted by a jury of attempted sex trafficking of a minor after engaging in a series of text communications with an undercover federal agent posing as the father of a 12-year-old girl. Over ten weeks, Curtin discussed paying for sex with the purported minor, repeatedly acknowledged her age, and arranged to meet at a public location. When Curtin arrived at the meeting spot with cash and items consistent with the planned encounter, law enforcement arrested him. A search of his vehicle and phone revealed evidence of adult pornography and solicitation of prostitutes, but no child sexual abuse material.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois presided over Curtin’s trial. Before trial, Curtin sought to introduce expert testimony from a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Fabien Saleh, to show that Curtin did not have pedophilic disorder and that an interest in adult sex or pornography does not imply an interest in minors. The district court excluded Dr. Saleh’s testimony, finding it would not be helpful to the jury, and allowed Curtin to make related arguments without expert support. The jury found Curtin guilty, and the court sentenced him to 180 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Curtin’s challenges to the exclusion of Dr. Saleh’s testimony. The court held that Curtin had waived his challenge regarding testimony about his lack of pedophilic tendencies by expressly agreeing with the district court’s ruling. As to the remaining expert testimony, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in its exclusion, concluding that the proposed testimony was within the common understanding of jurors and that any error was harmless given the strength of the government’s evidence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Curtin’s conviction. View "United States v. Curtin" on Justia Law

Federal agents investigated a drug trafficking conspiracy in Fort Wayne, Indiana, using a confidential source to conduct controlled buys from Zachary Barnes. Barnes coordinated the sales, supplied methamphetamine, and directed his co-conspirator, Marquese Neal, to make deliveries. Neal testified that Barnes paid him in marijuana for his services. Barnes was arrested, and law enforcement found drugs and ammunition in his home.Barnes pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to possess it with intent to distribute. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana applied a two-level enhancement under section 3B1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines for Barnes' role as a manager or supervisor. This enhancement made Barnes ineligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), resulting in a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. Barnes objected to the role enhancement and the denial of safety-valve relief, but the district court overruled his objections, finding Neal's testimony credible and supported by other evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's application of the role enhancement, agreeing that Barnes' actions—recruiting Neal, coordinating logistics, supplying drugs, and directing deliveries—fit the criteria for a manager or supervisor under section 3B1.1(c). The court also upheld the denial of safety-valve relief, as Barnes' supervisory role made him ineligible. The Seventh Circuit found no clear error in the district court's credibility determinations or factual findings and affirmed Barnes' ten-year sentence. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law