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

Young drove Hughes to get a haircut. Hughes stated that he had a gun that he was returning to its owner at the barbershop. Young came back hours later. Young did not ask about the gun but believed that Hughes had left it. Chicago police received an anonymous tip that the two were driving around with a gun. Officers spotted the vehicle and saw that Hughes was not wearing a seatbelt. They lawfully stopped the car and approached with guns drawn. Hughes told Young, “take this.” Young replied, “hell no.” Hughes wiped the gun and placed it on the center console. The officers saw this, arrested both men, and learned both were convicted felons. The officers' reports listed Hughes as the gun's possessor and owner. Young was charged as an armed habitual criminal. A judge found probable cause to detain him. Young could not pay the $100,000 bond. Young stayed in pretrial detention for a year before being acquitted. Young sued Chicago and several officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for holding him in pretrial detention without probable cause and ignoring and fabricating evidence to detain him.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the summary judgment rejection of all of his claims. “It does not matter that Young said the gun wasn’t his—protesting innocence is not a get-out-of-pretrial-detention-free card." Nor does it matter that the police allegedly later falsified evidence. They had all the probable cause they needed from the arrest scene. View "Young v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

East Troy police, conducting a “sting” operation, used a confidential informant to lure Juarez-Nieves into delivering cocaine at Roma’s restaurant. Nieves showed up with Davis and Lara, who parked their car in the restaurant lot, next to an empty vehicle. The police arrived in their marked squad car and started to park behind the empty car, Lara began slowly to pull out of his parking spot. Officer Knox had to step aside to avoid the car. As Lara headed for the exit, Deputy Ortiz, standing 50 feet away, fired shots into the car. A shot hit Davis. Lara kept driving for a brief time but crashed the car. The police apprehend Lara and Nieves as they fled on foot. Medical personnel pronounced Davis dead. Davis’s Estate argued that Ortiz’s use of deadly force was unreasonable.The district court found that Ortiz’s testimony was not enough to establish as a matter of law that Ortiz was aiming exclusively for the driver. Instead, Ortiz said that his “intent was to stop the threat that was coming at [him].” The district court found that a jury could conclude that Ortiz was shooting at the car generally and that deadly force was excessive in those circumstances. The court denied Ortiz’s motion for qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit dismissed an interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Disputes of material fact on which immunity depend must be resolved by the trier of fact. View "Estate of Christopher J. Davis v. Ortiz" on Justia Law

Morgan transferred funds to an acquaintance in New Mexico, who used those funds to buy seven guns and mail them to Morgan’s Chicago residence. Morgan admits that the firearms were sent to his home and that "friends and family" had access to the residence, but could not recall in whose hands the guns came to rest. Officers recovered six of the guns. Several were linked to gang-related homicides, including one of a child. Morgan was charged under 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy) and 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) (unlicensed receipt of a firearm). He pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge. The PSR calculated a sentencing guidelines range between 24-30 months’ incarceration, considering Morgan’s acceptance of responsibility.The court acknowledged his acceptance of responsibility but stated that Morgan distributed the guns knowing that they would be used by gang members, not just friends and family. Morgan agreed. The court sentenced Morgan to 48 months’ incarceration and imposed discretionary conditions of release, including condition 16, which authorized the probation office to visit Morgan at home, work, school, or other locations and confiscate any contraband in plain view, and condition 23, which authorized the probation office to search Morgan’s “person, property, house, residence, vehicle, papers, [computers], or office,” if the search was supported by reasonable suspicion. The Seventh Circuit rejected most of Morgan’s challenges but remanded. The district court failed to justify supervised-release condition 23 with reference to the sentencing criteria, 18 U.S.C. 3553. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Hamzeh’s friend contacted the FBI, concerned that Hamzeh planned to commit a mass killing. The FBI involved another informant, who began working with the two at a restaurant. Both recorded their conversations with Hamzeh, who spoke about committing acts of terrorism to be martyred as part of his Islamic faith, carrying out a Middle East shooting, committing a domestic shooting at a Masonic lodge, and acquiring weapons for these crimes. The FBI instructed the informants to offer to arrange a purchase if Hamzeh wanted a weapon so authorities could set up a sting operation. Hamzeh and the informants negotiated with undercover FBI Agents posing as arms dealers for the purchase of two machine guns and a silencer. Hamzeh carried the unregistered weapons to his vehicle and was arrested.The government moved to admit excerpts of the informants’ recorded conversations with Hamzeh to show lack of entrapment. The court expressed concern with a jury convicting Hamzeh of possession based on his plans and “disturbing talk” rather than the elements of the offense and stated that motive was irrelevant under 26 U.S.C. 5861(d). The court excluded much of the government’s evidence. In an interlocutory appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed, noting repeated errors in excluding evidence as “not probative” or irrelevant, which affected the court’s further findings under Rule 403. It also erred in excluding the machinegun-availability evidence as irrelevant; the evidence is conditionally admissible, subject to Hamzeh’s introduction of evidence he did not have the ability to commit the crime. View "United States v. Hamzeh" on Justia Law

Collins pleaded guilty to participating in a heroin distribution ring and was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment, the statutory mandatory minimum. Collins sought to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that, at sentencing, the government breached the plea agreement by failing to move for a downward departure from the statutory minimum. The government explained that Collins had refused its requests to provide “complete and truthful testimony.” Collins disputed that assertion.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence. Collins did not raise this argument in the district court, so the demanding “plain error” standard applies. Even if there might have been a breach of the plea agreement, it was not plain. Even if there had been a plain error, Collins did not suffer any prejudice from it. His sentence was the lowest the law would permit, and the plain-error review does not entitle Collins himself to choose to withdraw his guilty pleas. View "United States v. Collins" on Justia Law

Agents seized electronic devices with 184,000 pornographic images and videos of children from Stephens’s home. Before charges were filed, officers discovered that Stephens in the meantime had downloaded 10,000 more child pornography images and videos and had shared some files. Stephens pleaded guilty to transporting child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(1).A probation officer calculated his guideline range as 151-188 months' imprisonment and recommended a 108-month sentence, reasoning that the computer enhancement is outdated, but suggested that an upward variance could be appropriate because Stephens possessed a large quantity of child pornography and because the first search had no deterrent effect. Stephens asked for the five-year mandatory minimum sentence, arguing that adopting 15 offense levels’ of enhancements would result in an artificially high sentence; citing his psychosexual evaluation, which concluded that, as a “no-contact” offender, Stephens was unlikely to sexually offend in the future; and noting his autism spectrum disorder, avoidant personality disorder, and depression diagnoses. He believed: “I did nothing wrong.” His attorney explained that Stephens had taken a cognitive skills class, behavioral treatment, and engaged ub reflection.The Seventh Circuit affirmed his 151-month sentence, finding that the district court adequately considered the arguments in mitigation, the probation officer’s recommendation, and the sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The court had noted images that depicted violent, traumatic, and sadistic abuse, “[t]he number of children seriously and irreversibly traumatized,” and doubts that Stephens could “realize the pure evil of these images.” View "United States v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Blake is serving a sentence of 420 months’ imprisonment for cocaine offenses. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his sentence. Five years later, the court rejected Blake’s effort to set aside his sentence on collateral review under 28 U.S.C. 2255.Blake was sentenced before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and did not benefit from its changes to the statutes and Sentencing Guidelines for persons convicted of crack cocaine offenses. The First Step Act of 2018 made the 2010 Act retroactively applicable. The district judge concluded that Blake, who has a history of violence, does not deserve a benefit from the 2018 Act.Blake’s lawyer sought leave to withdraw, arguing that the appeal was frivolous. The court granted that motion, rejecting Blake’s opposition, but did not dismiss the appeal. Once the direct appeal is over, the Constitution no longer requires the government to ensure that the defendant has a lawyer. The statute authorizing many retroactive sentencing adjustments, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), is not part of the process of conviction or direct appellate review. Blake is entitled to represent himself or to seek the aid of another lawyer. View "United States v. Blake" on Justia Law

In 2015, inmate Peterson suffered from genital warts. Davida, a Stateville Correctional Center physician employed by Wexford, prescribed a topical medication (Podocon-25), which is caustic and should be applied sparingly, then removed thoroughly. PODOCON-25's packaging states that “PODOCON-25© IS TO BE APPLIED ONLY BY A PHYSICIAN” and warns of multiple potential “ADVERSE REACTIONS.” Davida did not apply the Podocon-25, nor did the nurses, who instructed Peterson to apply the treatment himself. He did so and suffered personal injuries.In 2016, Peterson filed a pro se complaint against Davida, the nurses, and Illinois Department of Corrections officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He alleged that the officer-defendants destroyed his shower pass permits, issued as part of his treatment, or failed to intervene to correct the situation. The court granted Peterson leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his claims except as to three correctional officers. After obtaining counsel, Peterson filed an amended complaint, adding Wexford. The parties stipulated to dismissal without prejudice on January 25, 2018. On January 21, 2019, Peterson filed the operative complaint, claiming deliberate indifference under section 1983 and negligence under Illinois law against Davida, the nurses, and Wexford. The district court dismissed, finding that the complaint failed to sufficiently allege that the defendants had the requisite state of mind for deliberate indifference and that Peterson’s negligence claims were untimely because his 2016 complaint did not contain those allegations; the relation-back doctrine governs only amendments to a complaint, not a new filing.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the section 1983 claims but reversed as to the negligence claims. The court did not consider 735 ILCS 5/13-217, under which plaintiffs have an “absolute right to refile their complaint within one year” of its voluntary dismissal. View "Peterson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2014, Sanford was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment— 82 months below the bottom of the U.S.S.G. range. Sanford is incarcerated in the Victorville, California federal prison. On April 28, 2020, the Victorville warden received two written requests from Sanford seeking compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Without waiting for a response from the warden or letting 30 days lapse without a response (as the statute requires), Sanford filed a compassionate-release motion in court on May 1. Appointed counsel stated that Sanford “suffers from several health conditions, including stomach pain, shortness of breath, and anxiety.” No details were provided.On May 14. the warden denied Sanford’s request, explaining that the medically stable 38-year-old did not establish “extraordinary and compelling” reasons and that “extraordinary measures” were being taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and explained the process for administrative appeal. Victorville prison did not then have any COVID-19 cases. The district court denied Sanford’s motion, concluding that the “mere presence” of COVID-19 in prison is not an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on alternate grounds. Sanford failed to exhaust administrative remedies within the Bureau of Prisons before filing his motion; section 3582(c)(1)(A) is a mandatory claim-processing rule and must be enforced when properly invoked. View "United States v. Sanford" on Justia Law

In 1999-2016, Wilkinson convinced approximately 30 people to invest $13.5 million in two hedge funds that he created. By 2008, Wilkinson lost the vast majority of their money. Wilkinson told them that the funds’ assets included a $12 million note with an Australian hedge fund, Pengana. The “Pengana Note” did not exist. Wilkinson provided fraudulent K-1 federal income tax forms showing that the investments had interest payments on the Pengana Note. To pay back suspicious investors, Wilkinson solicited about $3 million from new investors using private placement memoranda (PPMs) falsely saying that Wilkinson intended to use their investments “to trade a variety of stock indexes and options, futures, and options on futures on such stock indexes on a variety of national securities and futures exchanges.” In 2016, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a civil enforcement action against Wilkinson, 7 U.S.C. 6p(1).Indicted under 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, Wilkinson pleaded guilty to wire fraud, admitting that he sent fraudulent K-1 forms and induced investment of $115,000 using fraudulent PPMs. The court applied a four-level enhancement because the offense “involved … a violation of commodities law and ... the defendant was … a commodity pool operator,” U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(20)(B). Wilkinson argued that he did not qualify as a commodity pool operator because he traded only broad-based indexes like S&P 500 futures, which fit the Commodity Exchange Act’s definition of an “excluded commodity,” “not based … on the value of a narrow group of commodities.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Wilkinson’s plea agreement and PSR established that Wilkinson was a commodity pool operator. View "United States v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law