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

Jaron Jackson pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a minor and transportation of child pornography. He was sentenced to 240 months in prison. Jackson appealed, arguing that the district court should have suppressed evidence found on his cell phone, claiming the police took too long (40 days) to seek a search warrant after his arrest. Jackson conceded that the warrant was supported by probable cause.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Jackson's motion to suppress, concluding that the delay did not allow the police to obtain any evidence they would not have received had they sought a warrant immediately. The district judge also found the motion untimely, as it was filed ten months past the deadline for pretrial motions. The court held a hearing to consider whether "good cause" justified the delay and concluded it did not.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the 40-day delay in seeking the warrant did not make the search unreasonable, as the phone had been in official custody since Jackson's arrest, and there was no risk of evidence being altered or destroyed. The court also noted that Jackson did not attempt to regain possession of the phone or express concern about the delay. Therefore, the district court properly denied the motion to suppress the evidence recovered from the phone. View "USA v Jackson" on Justia Law

John Johnson pleaded guilty in 2020 to distributing large volumes of cocaine on two occasions in 2014 while he was on supervised release for a 2001 crack cocaine conviction. His guilty plea led to the revocation of his supervised release. The district court held a combined sentencing hearing, imposing a 180-month imprisonment and six years of supervised release for each count of the new offenses, to be served concurrently. Additionally, the court imposed a 24-month imprisonment for the supervised release violation, also to be served concurrently with the 180-month sentence.Johnson filed a motion to reduce the 24-month sentence under the First Step Act, which the district court denied, believing he was not eligible for a reduction. Johnson appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that Johnson's revocation sentence is eligible for a reduction under the First Step Act because the revocation penalties relate to the original offense, which is a covered offense under the Act. However, the court found that the district court's error in denying the reduction was harmless because the 24-month sentence runs concurrently with the 180-month sentence for the new offenses. Therefore, even if the 24-month sentence were reduced, it would not affect the total length of Johnson's imprisonment. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Jacob Powers was convicted by a Wisconsin jury in 2006 for enticing and sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl. Powers challenged his convictions in state court, claiming he was incompetent at the time of his trial and that his lawyer was ineffective for not raising this issue. After exhausting his state court remedies, Powers sought federal habeas corpus review on the same grounds.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Powers's habeas petition. The court considered three post-trial evaluations of Powers's competency, his demeanor at trial, and the fact that his appellate attorney, after consulting with his trial counsel, chose not to pursue an incompetency claim. The district court concluded that Powers was competent at the time of his trial and that his trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the issue of competency.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court noted that Powers's trial testimony and behavior did not indicate incompetency. Additionally, the court found that the evaluations conducted by Dr. Schoenecker and Dr. Dolezal, which concluded that Powers was competent, were more persuasive than Dr. Glassman's inconclusive report. The court also emphasized that Powers's trial counsel did not raise any concerns about his competency during the trial, and his appellate attorney found it frivolous to argue incompetency.The Seventh Circuit held that Powers was competent at his 2006 trial and that his trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the issue of competency. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Powers's habeas corpus petition. View "Powers v Noble" on Justia Law

Gregory Johnson was convicted by a jury of attempting to use a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing child pornography. At sentencing, the district court found Johnson indigent and waived a fine under 18 U.S.C. § 3571 and a discretionary assessment under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA), 18 U.S.C. § 3014. However, the court imposed a $5,000 assessment under the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act (AVAA), 18 U.S.C. § 2259A, despite Johnson's indigency.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, adopted the facts in the presentence investigation report (PSR) without objection. The PSR indicated Johnson had no income apart from occasional support from his mother and minimal assets. The court recognized Johnson's inability to pay a fine and excused him from the JVTA assessment but imposed the AVAA assessment without further discussion of his financial condition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court clarified that the AVAA assessment is mandatory regardless of the defendant's ability to pay, but the amount is discretionary and must consider factors including the defendant's financial condition. The court found that the district court did not adequately explain why $5,000 was an appropriate amount given its findings about Johnson's financial condition for other penalties. The Seventh Circuit vacated the AVAA assessment and ordered a limited remand for the district court to reconsider the assessment and provide a reasoned explanation for the amount imposed. View "USA v Johnson" on Justia Law

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