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

The Seventh Circuit affirmed defendant's 20 year prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to transporting methamphetamine as part of a 20-person conspiracy. The court held that the evidence, viewed apart from the base offense levels of defendant's coconspirators, was sufficient to support the district court's finding that defendant handled more than 1.5 kilograms of Ice. In this case, the decision not to treat defendant identically with his coconspirators did not plainly make a difference to his sentencing range or impair the fairness or integrity of the proceedings. The court also held that defendant was not entitled to insist on a minimal role for himself while still receiving credit for accepting responsibility. View "United States v. Castaneda" on Justia Law

The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after he pleaded guilty to illegal possession of heroin and a firearm. In this case, officers detained and frisked defendant after observing him and his brother load paper bags into defendant's garage. The officer who ordered the stop had a hunch that the bags contained drug-trafficking contraband, but the officer was wrong. Nonetheless, eight officers continued to detain defendant.The court held that when the officers seized and searched defendant, they did not have a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in crime. Even if the original stop had been justified, the officers continued detaining defendant beyond the original justification for the stop. The court held that either violation was sufficient to undermine the validity of defendant's eventual consent to the search of his house. View "United States v. Lopez" on Justia Law

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), to probe the credibility of the FBI agent who procured a warrant for samples of his DNA. In this case, defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to bank robbery. The court held that, although the wording of the warrant affidavit was misleading, curing the inaccuracy would not defeat probable cause. Nevertheless, the court held that defendant failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that the misstatement was deliberate or reckless. View "United States v. Daniels" on Justia Law

The Seventh Circuit affirmed defendant's 71 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to distributing fentanyl. The court held that any error in calculating defendant's criminal history category was harmless because it had no effect on the sentenced imposed. The court also held that the district court gave a sufficient explanation for departing from the recommended 3-year term. The court remanded with instructions for the district court to correct two clerical errors in the written judgment. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner claimed that the prosecutor made improper statements during closing arguments. The court held that the prosecutor's comment on petitioner's failure to testify was not an invitation for the jury to consider petitioner's decision as evidence of his guilty. To the extent that any prejudice arose from the comment, the clear jury instructions cured it. The court also held that the prosecutor's argument concerning the Gangster Disciples did not prejudice petitioner. View "Clark v. Lashbrook" on Justia Law

The Seventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for eight counts of health care fraud and eight counts of making false statements affecting a healthcare matter. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict where there was ample evidence in the record from which the jury could infer that in order to make insurance companies pay for something that otherwise fell outside their policies, defendant performed a cosmetic procedure on patients whom he intentionally misdiagnosed. The court held that the evidence also supported the finding that defendant committed fraud by submitting claims that IPL by itself destroyed 15 or more lesions caused by actinic keratosis, something he knew it could not do. Finally, the court declined to reach the merits of defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "United States v. Memar" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed two discretionary conditions of his supervised release after pleading guilty to two counts of filing fraudulent federal tax returns. The first condition prohibited "excessive use" of alcohol and the second condition obligated defendant to submit to visits from his probation officer at any reasonable time.The Seventh Circuit held that defendant waived his challenge to the visitation condition where his counsel had previously told the district court that the condition was reasonable. In regard to the alcohol condition, the court held that, although the district court procedurally erred by failing to mention the objective benchmark in the district court's oral pronouncement of the sentence or later in its written judgment, the error could be fixed and remand was unnecessary. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The court held that the search was supported by the officers' good faith reliance on then-existing circuit precedent in United States v. Hines, 449 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2006). The court explained that, at the time the officers brought the dog onto plaintiff's driveway to conduct the sniff, Hines permitted the warrantless search of a vehicle parked close to a house on the defendant's private driveway so long as there was probable cause to believe that the search would uncover contraband or evidence of a crime. View "United States v. Velazquez" on Justia Law

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. 1983], … until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Ramirez, who is a Spanish speaker, sued administrators and officers of the Western Illinois Correctional Center under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for alleged constitutional wrongs. As a prisoner. he was subject to the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. Western Illinois had administrative remedies available. Ramirez did not use those procedures in a timely fashion to complain about the issues raised in his federal action. Ramirez claimed that the existing grievance process was unavailable to him because they were described to him only in a language that prison officials knew he did not understand. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, then dismissed Ramirez’s complaint without prejudice. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Because no administrator or officer of Western Illinois ever informed Ramirez of its grievance process in a way that he might reasonably understand, that process was unavailable to him and he was excused from the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. View "Ramirez v. Young" on Justia Law

Iowa closed the Iowa Girls State Training School. Palmer, Director of the Iowa Department of Human Services, subsequently contracted to use the Wisconsin Girls State Training School (Copper Lake). Plaintiffs claim that, since its 2011 opening, Cooper Lake “has had a very high turnover rate of employees,” leading to “over-worked and untrained staff” and has received criticism from Wisconsin judges regarding its “sordid” and “inhumane” treatment of juveniles. Iowa juvenile courts ordered Plaintiffs to be placed at Copper Lake in 2015. Both were 16 years old. Plaintiffs claim that Copper Lake subjected them to prolonged “isolation,” and that they received little or no educational instruction. Both attempted suicide. Plaintiffs also claim they were subjected to excessive force and that staff sprayed them with mace on multiple occasions. Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for cruel and unusual punishment, excessive force, and deprivation of due process. The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of their claims. The district court acted prematurely in deciding Palmer’s entitlement to qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage. At the time plaintiffs were allegedly in Palmer’s custody, isolation of pre-trial juvenile detainees not “reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective”could rise to the level of a constitutional violation. On the record, it is impossible to determine whether such a constitutional violation occurred in plaintiffs’ cases. View "Reed v. Palmer" on Justia Law