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

The defendant, Delon Echols, was convicted of attempting to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute it. The case revolved around two packages containing illegal drugs that were sent to the home of Renita Burns, where Echols was temporarily residing. Burns testified that she suspected Echols was responsible for the packages. During the trial, the prosecution introduced testimony from a DEA agent about a prior consistent statement made by Burns. The defense objected, arguing that the testimony was merely bolstering Burns' credibility.The district court in Illinois admitted the testimony, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), which allows for the admission of prior consistent statements to rebut charges of fabrication. Echols was found guilty and sentenced to 70 months in prison and three years of supervised release. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the district court erred in admitting the prior consistent statement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed that the district court erred in admitting the prior consistent statement. The court noted that under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) and Tome v. United States, a prior consistent statement offered to rebut charges of fabrication must have been made before the motive to fabricate arose. In this case, Burns' statement was made after her alleged motive to fabricate had arisen. However, the court found that Echols had not raised this specific objection at trial, thus forfeiting it on appeal.The court concluded that while the admission of the prior statement was an error, it did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Therefore, the court affirmed Echols' conviction. View "United States v. Echols" on Justia Law

Rodney Lass was initially charged with misdemeanor domestic abuse. However, the case ended in a mistrial due to the alleged victim's disregard of a court order. Subsequently, the prosecutors recharged the case, adding multiple felony counts. Lass was found guilty on all but one charge and was sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment. Lass contended that the second set of charges were the product of an unconstitutional vindictive prosecution. He argued that the prosecutors leveled the expanded charges against him in retaliation for his seeking and receiving a mistrial in the misdemeanor case.Lass sought post-conviction relief in Wisconsin state court and later in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, determining that Lass failed to allege facts that would establish a presumption of vindictiveness or actual vindictiveness. The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined review.Lass's application for relief in federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 also fell short. The district court found that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not apply a presumption of vindictiveness and that its declining to do so was neither contrary to nor reflected an unreasonable application of clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The district court also declined to consider Lass's two remaining claims, finding both procedurally defaulted.In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit, Lass's contentions were seen as procedurally defaulted. The court affirmed the district court's disposition of these two claims. The court also found no basis for federal habeas relief under § 2254(d) on Lass's vindictive prosecution claim. The court concluded that no aspect of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals' rationale was contrary to or reflected an unreasonable application of clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent. View "Lass v. Wells" on Justia Law

A nurse practitioner, Lisa Hofschulz, and her ex-husband, Robert Hofschulz, were convicted of conspiracy and multiple counts of distributing drugs in an unauthorized manner, including one count resulting in a patient's death. The charges stemmed from their operation of a "pain clinic" that functioned as a front for an opioid mill, dispensing opioid prescriptions for cash-only payments. Robert Hofschulz was also convicted for his role in assisting Lisa Hofschulz in running the opioid mill.The Hofschulzes were initially tried in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. They were found guilty on all counts, with Lisa Hofschulz receiving a minimum 20-year prison term for the count of unlawful distribution resulting in death, and Robert Hofschulz receiving concurrent terms of 36 months in prison on each of his five convictions. The Hofschulzes appealed their convictions on three grounds: they claimed the jury instructions were inconsistent with a Supreme Court decision, that the judge wrongly permitted the government’s medical expert to testify about the standard of care, and that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions.The case was then reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The court found no instructional error, stating that the district judge had correctly instructed the jury that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Hofschulzes intended to distribute controlled substances and intended to do so in an unauthorized manner. The court also found that the judge had correctly permitted the government’s medical expert to testify about the standard of care in the usual course of professional pain management. Lastly, the court dismissed the Hofschulzes' challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, deeming it frivolous. The court affirmed the convictions of the Hofschulzes. View "United States v. Hofschulz" on Justia Law

The defendant, Travis Montgomery, pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine. The government presented evidence that Montgomery stored the drugs, cash, and drug trafficking paraphernalia in a storage unit leased by his sister. The district court applied a two-level enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(12) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which requires an increase where a defendant “maintained a premises for the purpose of … distributing a controlled substance.” Montgomery objected to this enhancement, arguing that his use of the storage unit did not meet the requirements of the enhancement.The district court, however, found that the storage unit qualified as a “premises” under § 2D1.1(b)(12), and that Montgomery had used it primarily for storing and distributing drugs. This enhancement increased Montgomery’s total offense level, leading to a sentence of 235 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Montgomery challenged the application of the § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement. The court agreed with the district court that the storage unit constituted a “premises” under the enhancement. However, the court was uncertain whether Montgomery sufficiently “maintained” the storage unit for the purposes of § 2D1.1(b)(12), given that he did not lease the unit himself and his use of it was for only a short time. The court also found that the record fell short of indicating that Montgomery was using the storage unit primarily for distributing drugs during the month in question. As a result, the court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further fact-finding. View "United States v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

Joseph Van Sach, a federal prison inmate, was sentenced to 87 months for assaulting a correctional officer. The incident occurred when Van Sach refused to comply with orders to submit to hand restraints, leading to the use of pepper spray and physical restraint by officers. Later, Van Sach punched a correctional officer in the eye, causing severe swelling, sharp pain, and bruising. He was subsequently convicted by a jury of one count of forcible assault on a federal officer.The probation officer prepared a presentence report recommending the base offense level for aggravated assault, along with several enhancements, resulting in a total offense level of 25 and a criminal history category of III. This calculation yielded a guidelines range of 70 to 87 months in prison. The government objected to the report, seeking a higher sentence due to the officer's persistent headaches and extreme physical pain. However, the district court overruled the government's objection and adopted the guidelines calculation as set forth in the report, sentencing Van Sach to 87 months in prison.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, both Van Sach and the government agreed that the district court erred in applying the guideline provision for aggravated assault, as the correctional officer did not suffer serious bodily injury. They argued that the court should have used a different guideline provision, which would have resulted in a lower guidelines range of 24 to 30 months. The government conceded the error but argued it was harmless because the district court considered other factors in sentencing. However, the appellate court found the error was not harmless and vacated Van Sach's sentence, remanding the case for resentencing using the correct guideline provision. View "USA v. Sach" on Justia Law

The case involves Roland Black, who was convicted of attempting to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, specifically furanyl fentanyl. Law enforcement intercepted a package addressed to Black, believing it contained narcotics. After obtaining a warrant, they found the substance, replaced it with sham narcotics, and delivered the package to Black's residence. Black was arrested after the package was opened and he was found with luminescent powder from the sham narcotics on his hands.Prior to his trial, Black had unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the indictment and suppress all evidence derived from the seizure of the package. He argued that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to seize the package and requested an evidentiary hearing to resolve related factual disputes. The district court denied these motions, ruling that the totality of the circumstances supported the officers' reasonable suspicion determination.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Black appealed his conviction, raising four arguments. He contended that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to seize the package, the jury instruction about his requisite mens rea was erroneous, the jury’s verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence, and the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on the court’s treatment of furanyl fentanyl as an analogue of fentanyl.The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision. It found that the officers had reasonable suspicion to seize the package, the jury instruction accurately stated the law, the jury’s verdict was supported by more than sufficient evidence, and Black's motion to dismiss argument was foreclosed by precedent. View "USA v. Black" on Justia Law

Mario Giannini and Robert Czernek were involved in a series of fraudulent schemes in Bloomingdale Township, Illinois. Giannini worked for Bulldog Earth Movers, a contractor owned by his girlfriend, Debra Fazio. Czernek, the Township's Highway Commissioner, approved inflated invoices from Bulldog, and the excess funds were split between Czernek and Bulldog. Giannini, Czernek, and Fazio were indicted on counts of wire and honest services fraud. Czernek cooperated with the government and pleaded guilty, while Giannini and Fazio proceeded to trial. However, Fazio was acquitted on all counts after the government's case-in-chief.The district court had previously denied Giannini's motion for a mistrial based on the government's late disclosure of investigating agents' notes regarding an inculpatory statement he made to Czernek. Giannini also argued that the court erred in allowing the prosecutors to discuss Fazio's conduct in closing arguments, despite her acquittal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial, as the late disclosure of the agents' notes did not sufficiently prejudice Giannini. The court also found no error in allowing the prosecutors to discuss Fazio's conduct, as it was highly relevant to the charges against Giannini. The court concluded that even if it was error to allow the comments, it was harmless given the overwhelming evidence against Giannini. View "United States v. Giannini" on Justia Law

The defendant, Christopher Johnson, was indicted and pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft after purchasing stolen credit card data and using it to produce counterfeit cards. The district court, when calculating the loss under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, deferred to the guidelines commentary and assessed a $500 minimum loss for each card. Johnson argued that the guidelines commentary was not entitled to deference as an interpretation of § 2B1.1, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Kisor v. Wilkie.The district court denied Johnson's objection, holding that the term "loss" in the context of § 2B1.1 was genuinely ambiguous and that the minimum loss amount was a reasonable interpretation of that term. The court also stated that even without deferring to the guidelines commentary, it would still have assessed a loss of $500 per card. Johnson was sentenced to 58 months' imprisonment: 34 months for wire fraud and the mandatory 24 months for aggravated identity theft.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Johnson challenged the district court's deference to the guidelines commentary. The court, however, affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Kisor v. Wilkie did not disturb the Supreme Court’s holding in Stinson v. United States that guidelines commentary is “authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of” the guideline it interprets. The court concluded that the guidelines commentary assessing $500 minimum loss per credit card therefore remains binding under Stinson. View "USA v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Seldrick Carpenter, who was serving a six-year term of supervised release after completing a federal sentence for distributing fentanyl. After the death of his mother, Carpenter began using drugs and acting out against his probation officer. When behavioral therapy failed to address these issues, his probation officer petitioned to revoke his supervised release. Carpenter was then suspected of setting a car on fire. The Probation Office alleged that Carpenter committed several supervised release violations, including arson, criminal damage to property, intimidation, and aggravated battery. Before the revocation hearing, Carpenter requested a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment and Article III, § 2, cl. 3. The district court denied the motion and presided over Carpenter’s revocation hearing without a jury. The court found Carpenter guilty of several violations and revoked his supervised release, imposing a revocation sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was tasked with determining whether a supervised release revocation proceeding held under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) constitutes the “trial of [a] crime” or a “criminal prosecution” within the meaning of either clause. The court agreed with the district court's decision that it does not. The court concluded that neither the Sixth Amendment nor Section 2 of Article III of the U.S. Constitution guarantee a jury trial in a revocation hearing like Carpenter’s. A defendant in Carpenter's situation is entitled only to those procedures dictated by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court also rejected Carpenter's argument that Article III, § 2 can apply to proceedings outside the scope of the Sixth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Marcos Mendez was stopped for inspection at O'Hare International Airport after returning from a trip abroad. Customs agents, who had been alerted to Mendez due to his arrest record and travel history, searched his cell phone and found child pornography. Mendez was subsequently indicted on multiple counts related to child pornography. He moved to suppress the evidence found on his phone, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights as it was conducted without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion.The district court denied Mendez's motion to suppress the evidence, ruling that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment as customs agents had reasonable suspicion to look through Mendez's phone. Mendez pleaded guilty to one count of producing child pornography but preserved his right to appeal the district court's ruling on the suppression motion.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Mendez argued that the Supreme Court's decisions in Riley v. California and Carpenter v. United States required a warrant, probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion for the searches of his phone. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that searches at borders do not require a warrant or probable cause. The court held that the routine, manual search of Mendez's phone required no individualized suspicion. The court affirmed the district court's decision, joining the uniform view of other circuits that searches of electronics at the border do not require a warrant or probable cause. View "United States v. Mendez" on Justia Law