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

Dijon Foston pleaded guilty to four charges: conspiracy to engage in racketeering, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm as a felon, and possession of a firearm in connection with a drug offense. The prosecutor dismissed two other charges. Foston was sentenced to a total of 203 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. The sentence was favorable compared to the Sentencing Guidelines range of 262 months.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois accepted Foston's guilty plea. Foston did not move to withdraw his plea in the district court, so his appeal depended on showing that accepting the plea was plain error. He argued that the district judge did not properly inform him of the nature of the racketeering charge during the plea colloquy, as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Foston was aware of the elements of the racketeering charge before pleading guilty, as the prosecutor described them in open court and Foston submitted a written declaration of his activities. The court noted an internal disagreement within the Seventh Circuit regarding whether a RICO conspiracy requires an agreement to assist enterprise leaders, but concluded that any error by the district judge was not "plain" due to this conflict. Additionally, the court found no prejudice to Foston, as his sentence would not change even if he were acquitted of the RICO charge. The court affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Foston" on Justia Law

Jonathan Smith pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine in federal court. At sentencing, the district court applied two recidivist enhancements based on his 2008 Illinois conviction for aggravated robbery, classifying it as a "crime of violence" and a "serious violent felony." Smith argued that his prior conviction should not qualify as a predicate offense for these enhancements because Illinois law did not require the intentional use of force for an aggravated robbery conviction.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois disagreed with Smith, relying on the Seventh Circuit's previous decision in United States v. Chagoya-Morales, which held that an Illinois aggravated robbery conviction involves the "use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another." The district court followed this precedent and sentenced Smith to 120 months in prison. Smith appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court examined whether the Illinois aggravated robbery statute, under which Smith was convicted, required the use of force directed at another person. The court found that Illinois law necessitated the use of force or the threat of force to deprive someone of property, aligning with the federal definitions of "serious violent felony" and "crime of violence." The court also considered Smith's arguments regarding the applicability of recklessness and the lack of a specific intent requirement but found them unpersuasive. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit held that Smith's 2008 conviction qualified as a predicate offense for the sentence enhancements and affirmed the district court's decision. View "USA v. Smith" on Justia Law

Alexander Kawleski was convicted of sexually assaulting his then-girlfriend's adolescent daughter and recording the act. He also recorded videos of the girl undressing and showering, which were stored on a flash drive. His new girlfriend, Tracy Brown, discovered the flash drive and turned it over to the police. Kawleski faced state charges and was federally indicted for producing and possessing child pornography. Key evidence included Brown's testimony and the videos found on the flash drive.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin oversaw the trial. The jury found Kawleski guilty on all counts. Kawleski moved for a new trial, citing newly discovered evidence from Brown's ex-boyfriend, who questioned her credibility and suggested she might have transferred the videos to the flash drive. The district judge denied the motion, stating the ex-boyfriend's statements were speculative and would only serve as impeachment evidence, which was unlikely to lead to an acquittal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district judge's decision, agreeing that the new evidence was speculative and insufficient to warrant a new trial. The court also found that the forensic examination of the Apple computer, which found no evidence of child pornography, refuted the ex-boyfriend's theory. The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a new trial and in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing. The convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "U.S. v. Kawleski" on Justia Law

Brian Cook entered a bank in Roseville, Illinois, wearing a disguise and armed with what appeared to be a gun, later identified as an air pistol. He threatened two tellers, directing one to retrieve money from the vault and instructing the other to stay put. Cook fled with a bag of cash but was quickly apprehended by law enforcement, who found the stolen money and the air pistol in his vehicle. Cook pleaded guilty to bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois sentenced Cook to 144 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The court applied a four-level enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(D) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, finding that Cook had "otherwise used" the gun during the robbery. Cook contested this, arguing that he had only "brandished" the gun, which would warrant a lesser, three-level enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E). The district court also considered Cook's extensive criminal history and his deliberate targeting of a small-town bank in its sentencing decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court found no procedural error in the application of the four-level enhancement, agreeing that Cook's actions constituted "otherwise using" the gun. The court also upheld the above-Guidelines sentence, noting that the district court had provided a thorough explanation for its decision, including Cook's extensive criminal history and the need for deterrence and public protection. The appellate court concluded that the sentence was neither procedurally erroneous nor substantively unreasonable. View "USA v. Cook" on Justia Law

Karl Nichols was convicted in a Wisconsin state court of first-degree sexual assault and sentenced to five years of probation. The conviction was based on allegations by a child, M.R.W., who claimed Nichols touched her inappropriately during a sleepover years earlier. M.R.W. participated in two forensic interviews, during which she made notes to correct her initial statements. These notes were lost by the prosecution, leading Nichols to argue that the prosecution failed to preserve exculpatory evidence and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not raising this issue before trial.Initially, Nichols won relief in the state trial court, which found that the prosecution acted in bad faith by not preserving the notes and that the notes contained exculpatory evidence. The court vacated Nichols' conviction and dismissed the case with prejudice. However, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that Nichols failed to demonstrate the exculpatory value of the missing notes. Nichols' petition for review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court was denied.Nichols then filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the Western District of Wisconsin. The district court denied relief, citing the deferential standard of review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and procedural default on the ineffective assistance claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The Seventh Circuit held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably concluded that the missing notes had no apparent exculpatory value and that the prosecution did not act in bad faith. The court also upheld the procedural default of Nichols' ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "Nichols v. Wiersma" on Justia Law

Robert Smith pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and money laundering conspiracy. Nearly eleven months later, on the eve of his sentencing, Smith's attorney filed a motion to withdraw at Smith's request, citing dissatisfaction with representation. The court denied the motion and refused to appoint substitute counsel. Smith was sentenced to 324 months in prison, below the guidelines range. He appealed the denial of his request for substitute counsel and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois initially scheduled Smith's sentencing for January 2023, but granted several continuances at Smith's request. The court eventually set the sentencing for July 12, 2023, and warned against further delays. On July 11, Smith's attorney filed a motion to withdraw, which the court denied after a hearing. The court found no breakdown in communication between Smith and his attorney, attributing the motion to a tactical delay. Smith's subsequent attempts to retain new counsel were unsuccessful, and his attorney represented him at sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for substitute counsel, noting the motion's untimeliness and the adequacy of the court's inquiry into Smith's concerns. The court also found that the disagreements between Smith and his attorney were strategic and did not constitute a total breakdown in communication. Additionally, the court ruled that Smith's below-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable, given the district court's thorough consideration of the relevant factors. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

In late 2016, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents began investigating individuals sharing child pornography over peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. Using a proprietary software program called "eMule," HSI agents identified and downloaded child pornography files from Warren Siepman's computer on three separate occasions between October 2016 and March 2017. The software operated automatically, searching for specific child pornography files and downloading them without human intervention. Forensic examination of Siepman's hard drives revealed over one thousand child pornography files, and Siepman admitted to viewing and sharing these files on the network.A grand jury indicted Siepman on three counts of transportation of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The case proceeded to trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where the jury was instructed on the elements of the transportation charge. The court also provided an additional instruction defining "transports" in the context of peer-to-peer file sharing, which Siepman objected to. The jury found Siepman guilty on all counts. Siepman moved for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial, arguing that the court's instruction was erroneous and that the evidence was insufficient. The district court denied the motion, finding the instruction accurate and the evidence sufficient.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 instruction accurately reflected the law, stating that making files available for download on a peer-to-peer network constitutes "transportation" under federal law. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, noting that the automated software's involvement did not negate the fact that an individual ultimately facilitated the download. The convictions were affirmed. View "United States v. Siepman" on Justia Law

Ji Chaoqun, a Chinese national, came to the United States in 2013 to study electrical engineering. In 2022, he was indicted for conspiring to commit an offense against the United States, failing to register as a foreign agent, wire fraud, and making a false statement. Evidence presented at trial showed that Ji was recruited by the Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS) before leaving China and engaged in various activities on their behalf, including purchasing background reports on U.S. scientists and attempting to infiltrate the U.S. Army Reserves.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois convicted Ji on all counts and sentenced him to 96 months in prison. Ji appealed, arguing that the government should have to prove he was not engaged in a legal commercial transaction as an element of the offense and that the jury should have been required to unanimously agree on the specific act he committed. He also challenged the district court’s evidentiary and sentencing decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the specific act a foreign agent commits under 18 U.S.C. § 951 does not require jury unanimity and that the legal commercial transaction exception is an affirmative defense, not an element of the offense. The court also found no error in the district court’s evidentiary rulings or in its sentencing decisions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Ji’s conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Chaoqun" on Justia Law

The case involves Refugio Avila, who was found with a loaded handgun during a traffic stop. Avila, a known member of the Satan's Disciple gang, was in a vehicle with his girlfriend when they were stopped by Chicago police officers conducting proactive policing. The officers observed several traffic violations and initiated a stop. During the stop, the officers conducted three pat-downs on Avila, discovering a loaded handgun during the third pat-down. Avila was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.Avila filed a motion to suppress the firearm and a motion to dismiss the indictment, alleging violations of the Speedy Trial Act. The district court denied both motions. Avila entered a conditional plea to the felony charge, reserving his right to challenge the district court's denial of his motions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on the motion to suppress, finding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and to frisk Avila, and the stop was not unlawfully prolonged. However, the court found that the district court erred in denying Avila's motion to dismiss the indictment. The court concluded that the district court had improperly excluded over 300 days from the Speedy Trial Act's seventy-day clock, violating the Act. The court reversed the district court's denial of Avila's motion to dismiss the indictment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Avila" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Terrell Esco, who alleged that he was unlawfully detained and maliciously prosecuted by the City of Chicago police officers. The officers arrested him for weapons and drug violations, but Esco claimed that the officers knew he was not the person they saw in possession of a gun. He further alleged that the officers' body-worn camera video evidence would support his claim. However, the district court judge viewed the video and held that the officers had probable cause to detain Esco, thereby dismissing his claims.The case was then brought to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The court agreed with the district court's assessment that Esco failed to allege any plausible claims. The court noted that the determination of probable cause is based on an objective assessment of what a reasonable officer could conclude based on information known to officers at the scene. The court found that the video provided definitive evidence that the officers had probable cause to believe that Esco was the person who possessed and then discarded the weapon.Furthermore, the court found that Esco failed to prove that the proceeding terminated in his favor, a necessary element for a malicious prosecution claim under Illinois law. The court noted that the mere fact that the state court entered a nolle prosequi order, without explanation of why the court entered the order, was insufficient evidence of a favorable termination of criminal proceedings. As a result, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, dismissing Esco's claims. View "Esco v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law