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

Hanson was indicted in 2009 for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in excess of 500 grams. The prosecution established Hanson’s three prior drug offenses and Kentucky felony third-degree residential burglary conviction. Hanson pleaded guilty with a plea agreement; the government listed only one prior felony drug conviction under 21 U.S.C. 851, instead of three potentially qualifying convictions, and relied in part on Hanson’s burglary conviction for a recommended Guidelines sentencing range. The Probation Officer calculated Hanson’s Guidelines range as 262-327 months, U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(c)(3). The court sentenced Hanson to 262 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of his collateral challenge to his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Noting that the challenge was untimely, the court rejected an argument that the district court erred when it included his third-degree burglary as a crime of violence, enhancing Hanson’s status to a career offender, and resulting in a “miscarriage of justice.” The government conceded that the Kentucky third-degree burglary statute does not inherently involve “purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct” of a “crime of violence” as part of the career offender designation but the court did not rely solely, or even principally, on the Guidelines; it referenced multiple considerations in imposing Hanson’s sentence, including the Guidelines, the lengthy presentencing report, the argument of the parties, and factors set forth in section 3553(a). View "Hanson v. United States" on Justia Law

Stewart sustained serious injuries upon crashing his car while driving under the influence. Although Stewart does not remember his time at the hospital he signed a form consenting to treatment. An emergency room doctor treated Stewart and in doing so ordered a blood draw, which confirmed that he had been drinking. The police requested and received the blood test results from the hospital’s medical staff. Stewart later sued both officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violating the Fourth Amendment by obtaining his test results without a warrant and the hospital’s medical staff for violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act by disclosing the results. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Indiana law requires medical staff who test a person’s blood “for diagnostic purposes” to “disclose the results of the test to a law enforcement officer who requests the … results as a part of a criminal investigation” regardless of whether the person has “consented to or otherwise authorized their release.” HIPAA does not confer individual enforcement rights—express or implied. The police officers did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. View "Stewart v. Parkview Hospital" on Justia Law

While on supervised release for possessing a firearm as a felon, Shockey tested positive for methamphetamine, which he later admitted using. A probation officer petitioned to revoke his supervision, charging Shockey with a Grade B violation for conduct constituting an offense punishable by a prison term exceeding one year, U.S.S.G. 7B1.1(a)(2). Shockey asked the court to find that he had merely used methamphetamine, rather than possessed it. Use is a Grade C violation that does not mandate revocation. He argued that he violated the requirement of his supervised-release condition to refrain from using drugs—a violation that is not a felony. The district court rejected Shockey’s argument, implying that use supports an inference of possession. With a sentencing range of 21-24 months in prison, the court sentenced him to 15 months, recognizing that Shockey had stayed sober for seven months before using methamphetamine and committed no other crimes. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Shockey was notified before the hearing by the probation officer in writing that he was alleged to have violated the Indiana “Possession of methamphetamine” statute and that this constituted a Grade B violation because the offense is punishable by more than one year in prison. The district court reasonably could infer possession from use. View "United States v. Shockey" on Justia Law

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission settled a civil action against Kraft. The consent decree includes a provision: Neither party shall make any public statement about this case other than to refer to the terms of this settlement agreement or public documents filed in this case, except any party may take any lawful position in any legal proceedings, testimony or by court order. The Commission issued a press release announcing the suit’s resolution. Kraft asked the judge to hold the Commission and Commissioners in contempt of court for issuing the press release and concurring statements. The judge scheduled a hearing and directed Chairman Tarbert, two Commissioners, the Commission’s Director of Enforcement, and other employees to appear and testify under oath. The judge stated that he would administer Miranda warnings to these witnesses in preparation for a finding of criminal contempt and would demand that the witnesses explain the thinking behind the press release and the separate statements. The Seventh Circuit granted mandamus relief, in part. There is neither need nor justification for testimony by the Chairman, any Commissioners, or any members of the agency’s staff. Under 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(10)(C), every member of the Commission has a right to publish an explanation of his vote, so the consent decree could not operate to silence individual Commission members. The court declined to order the district court to close the contempt proceeding. View "Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Blakey" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs contracted to sell their condominiums. The Illinois Condominium Property Act requires an owner to give the prospective buyer a copy of the condominium declaration and bylaws, the condominium association’s rules, and other documents. The association’s board must furnish the required documents within 30 days of the owner’s written request; it may charge a reasonable fee. Sudler, which managed plaintiffs' buildings under contracts with the condominium associations, contracted with HomeWiseDocs.com, which assembles the required disclosure documents as PDFs, giving condominium owners almost instantaneous electronic access to the material needed to close a resale transaction. HomeWise charged plaintiffs $240 and $365 for PDFs of the disclosure documents. Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action, alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices and Condominium Acts; aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty; civil conspiracy; and unjust enrichment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The Condominium Act does not provide a private right of action, and there is no basis in Illinois law to imply one. Illinois courts have held that charging too much for goods or services is not, alone, an unfair practice under the consumer fraud statute. The complaint does not plead an actionable breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment and conspiracy are not independent causes of action under Illinois law. View "Horist v. Sudler & Co." on Justia Law

Portee pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and faced a sentencing guidelines range of 63–78 months, with a statutory maximum of 120 months. The government sought sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), citing: a 1983 Illinois attempted armed robbery conviction; a 1990 Indiana robbery conviction; a 2000 Indiana pointing a firearm conviction; and a 2006 Indiana intimidation conviction. Under ACCA, a defendant convicted of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) who has three prior violent felony convictions must be sentenced to at least 15 years. In 2010, the judge sentenced Portee, under ACCA, to 180 months. In 2015, the Supreme Court held, in “Johnson,” that ACCA’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague; a felony is a “violent felony” under ACCA only if it satisfies ACCA’s elements clause (has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another) or is specifically enumerated as a violent felony. Portee moved to correct his sentence. The Seventh Circuit reversed the denial of relief. The elements of Indiana felony pointing do not require that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use physical force against the person of another. There are situations that could meet all the elements of Indiana felony intimidation by threat to commit a forcible felony that do not involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another. View "Portee v. United States" on Justia Law

On May 24, the district court entered an opinion with language that the judge believed would serve as a preliminary injunction. MillerCoors’s appeal was docketed but the district court did not comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d)(1)(C), which requires every injunction to be set forth without referring to any other document. On September 4, while appeal was pending, the district court entered another opinion stating that it was “modifying” the May 24 decision; it did not follow Fed.R.Civ.P. 62.1 procedures for modifying an order that is before the court of appeals, nor did it discuss the rule that only one court at a time has jurisdiction. The court still did not comply with Rule 65(d) nor did it modify the injunction under Rule 62(d). Anheuser-Busch appealed. On September 6, the court modified the September 4 modification, without discussing its jurisdiction. It did not rely on Rule 62(d), did not follow the Rule 62.1 procedure, and did not comply with Rule 65(d). The Seventh Circuit ordered a limited remand with instructions to enter the injunction on a document separate from the opinions. Although the court’s intent to afford enforceable equitable relief is sufficiently clear to provide appellate jurisdiction despite the noncompliance with Rule 65(d), enforcing that Rule is important. The district court may be able to avoid the potential jurisdictional problems that its modifications of the initial order have created. View "MillerCoors LLC v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC" on Justia Law

The Marion County Superior Courts and the Sheriff’s Office use different case management systems, which have difficulty communicating. A system implemented to ensure the transfer of data was imperfect. Problems arose when the courts modified a release order for a detainee who had already been processed. The Sheriff’s Office reached an agreement to have court staff contact the Sheriff’s inmate records staff if there was a subsequent order. The Sheriff’s Office took custody of Levy on February 29, 2016. Levy remained in custody until March 3, 2016. Levy claims the judge at his first court appearance ordered him released on his own recognizance and the Sheriff unlawfully detained him. The Sheriff’s Office claimed that the judge ordered that Levy remain in custody until he transferred to Marion County Community Corrections; at Levy’s second appearance on March 2, a different judge ordered Levy to self-report. The records staff had already processed Levy; the court did not contact the Sheriff’s Office about the modification, Levy sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging unreasonable seizure and detention and deprivation of liberty without due process. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Absent evidence that the Sheriff’s Office knew or should have known that the policy would fail, or failed so often that it would obviously result in over-detention, Levy cannot show that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference. The Sheriff’s actions showed awareness that a danger existed and an attempt to avert an injury. Levy’s singular experience does not support a finding to the contrary. View "Levy v. Marion County Sheriff" on Justia Law

School Superintendent Reichhart granted an adult student permission to possess cigarettes on school grounds. Ulrey, the assistant principal, disagreed with that decision. Without approaching Reichhart first, Ulrey called the president of the school board, who emailed Reichhart to express concern about his decision. Reichhart rebuked Ulrey for going over his head, threatening to reprimand her formally. She apologized. Three months later, she resigned during a meeting with Reichhart. Ulrey filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Reichhart and the school board, claiming that Reichhart violated her First Amendment rights by retaliating for her speech about a student discipline issue and that the defendants coerced her to resign, depriving her of her property interest in her job without due process of law. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Ulrey spoke about the discipline issue in her capacity as an employee, so the First Amendment did not protect her speech. Ulrey failed to present sufficient evidence sufficient that her resignation was involuntary. The test is not whether the employee was happy about resigning or even whether the employer asked for the resignation. Ulrey offered to resign because Reichhart’s “vibes” and “physical demeanor” communicated his desire to fire her. That is not enough to treat the defendants as if they had denied her the extensive procedural protections available if she had wanted to contest a possible termination. View "Ulrey v. Reichhart" on Justia Law

Chicago Officers, in uniform, were patrolling a public housing complex in an effort to increase police visibility in anticipation of celebratory gunfire to usher in the new year. They saw Holly walking on a sidewalk inside a courtyard, approached, and asked Holly if he had a gun. The officers testified that they did not draw their guns nor did they touch Holly. Holly claimed that they approached with guns drawn. Holly said yes. The police confiscated the gun and arrested him. Holly was charged with possessing a firearm following a prior felony conviction, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). He moved to suppress the gun, arguing that his police encounter was an impermissible seizure. He also moved to dismiss the indictment, contending that the police’s failure to preserve video footage of his arrest violated his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland. The court denied Holly’s motions, reasoning that the officers’ testimony made more sense than Holly’s and that Holly was less credible given his criminal history and his three shifting explanations for why he had a gun. The court noted that no one who watched the video (before it was overwritten) testified that it depicted Holly’s arrest. Holly had not established that the video was potentially exculpatory or that the police acted in bad faith by failing to preserve it. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. In the totality of circumstances, Holly’s interaction with police was voluntary and did not constitute a seizure. View "United States v. Holly" on Justia Law