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

William Hudson was convicted in Wisconsin state court of conspiracy to commit first-degree intentional homicide and conspiracy to commit arson. The convictions stemmed from an agreement Hudson made with another inmate, Scott Seal, to kill Seal’s ex-girlfriend and commit arson in exchange for payment. Seal, however, was an informant. After Hudson was released, he met with an undercover officer posing as Seal’s defense attorney, accepted an envelope with $6,000 and the targets' addresses, and was arrested. Hudson claimed he never intended to commit the crimes but was trying to scam Seal to support himself and his sister, Dana Hudson.Hudson filed a direct appeal alleging outrageous governmental conduct and ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not arguing the government’s conduct. The Wisconsin circuit court denied postconviction relief, and the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin affirmed. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied review. Hudson then filed a postconviction motion under Section 974.06, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not calling Dana as a witness and not investigating her testimony. The Wisconsin circuit court held evidentiary hearings and denied relief, finding counsel’s performance was not deficient. The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied review.Hudson filed a habeas petition in federal court, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel and postconviction counsel. The district court denied the petition, holding that the state court had not misapplied Strickland v. Washington and that trial counsel’s performance satisfied Strickland’s deferential standard. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that even if counsel’s performance was deficient, Hudson failed to demonstrate that the deficiencies prejudiced the outcome of the case. View "Hudson v DeHaan" on Justia Law

Rhonda Sutton was charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. At her arraignment in June 2018, the district court appointed counsel to represent her. Sutton pleaded not guilty in January 2020. After several delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the district court set her trial for November 2022. In September 2022, Sutton requested her attorneys to engage in plea negotiations, but she ultimately decided to proceed to trial. She then expressed dissatisfaction with her counsel and requested new representation. Her counsel filed a motion to withdraw, which the district court denied, citing no conflict or communication breakdown and suspecting a delay tactic.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Sutton's motion to substitute appointed counsel, finding no conflict or communication breakdown and suspecting her request was a delay tactic. The trial proceeded as scheduled, and the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts. Post-trial, Sutton's counsel filed another motion to withdraw, which the district court granted, appointing new counsel for sentencing. At sentencing, Sutton raised objections to the proposed conditions of supervised release, but she waived her challenge to one condition by not objecting at the appropriate time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Sutton raised two issues on appeal: the denial of her pretrial motion to withdraw and the constitutionality of a supervised release condition. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw, as Sutton had no right to insist on counsel she could not afford, and her request appeared to be a delay tactic. The court also found that Sutton waived her challenge to the supervised release condition by not objecting at the appropriate time. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA v Sutton" on Justia Law

Jeffery Henson was convicted of federal fraud, including aggravated identity theft, money laundering, and wire fraud, for diverting nearly $330,000 from his employer to his personal account. He was ordered to pay $436,495.93 in restitution. Following his arrest, Illinois police found $17,390 in cash in his car. The government sought to apply this cash towards Henson's restitution, but Henson argued that the money was obtained through an illegal search and seizure, as the warrant was issued nine hours after the search.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, through a magistrate judge, granted the government's motion to turn over the cash. Henson appealed, contending that the magistrate judge lacked the authority to issue a final decision on the matter.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that the magistrate judge acted outside of his authority, as there was no final decision in the case. The Federal Magistrates Act and the local rules of the Central District of Illinois did not authorize the magistrate judge to issue a final decision on the turnover motion without the district court's explicit assignment. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, as the magistrate judge's order was not an appealable final decision. View "USA v Henson" on Justia Law

In March 2021, Jamal Shehadeh was involved in a controlled drug buy orchestrated by the Taylorville, Illinois Police Department. A confidential informant paid Shehadeh for methamphetamine, and the transaction was recorded on video. Shehadeh was arrested shortly after leaving the informant's house, waived his constitutional rights, and admitted to delivering the drugs. Shehadeh claimed he knew the buy was a setup and intended to embarrass the police by taking the buy money without delivering drugs. However, he ended up giving the informant methamphetamine, which he claimed he thought was road salt.A grand jury indicted Shehadeh for delivering methamphetamine. The government moved to preclude cross-examination of a witness, Chief Dwayne Wheeler, about past misconduct, which Shehadeh's counsel did not oppose. The district court granted the motion. Shehadeh later filed a pro se motion to cross-examine Wheeler on additional topics, which the court struck. At trial, Shehadeh testified about his plan, but the jury found him guilty. The district court applied a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement and a career offender enhancement, resulting in a Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months. Shehadeh was sentenced to 92 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Shehadeh waived his evidentiary arguments by not objecting to the district court's rulings and failing to renew objections during the trial. The court also concluded that any error in applying the obstruction of justice enhancement was harmless because the career offender enhancement controlled the length of Shehadeh's sentence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "USA v Shehadeh" on Justia Law

Christopher Easterling attempted to rob a Walgreens store on September 15, 2019, by brandishing a firearm and demanding money from the cashier, who fled. Easterling did not take anything and was apprehended. He was charged with interference with commerce by robbery, carrying and using a firearm during a crime of violence, and possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. Easterling pleaded guilty to all charges.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois sentenced Easterling to 239 months in prison, which was above the advisory guidelines range of 141 to 155 months. The sentence included 155 months for the robbery, 120 months for the firearm possession (to run concurrently), and a consecutive 84 months for using a firearm during a crime of violence. Easterling appealed, and the Seventh Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing after the Supreme Court ruled that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence," invalidating one of his convictions.At the resentencing, the district court calculated a new advisory range of 84 to 105 months but imposed the same 239-month sentence. Easterling appealed again, and during the appeal, the Sentencing Commission amended the guidelines to remove two criminal history points for offenses committed while on parole, which would lower his advisory range to 70 to 87 months. The district court declined to reduce his sentence, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit remanded the case for resentencing, noting that the district court had not had the opportunity to consider the retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. The court found that it was in the interest of justice to remand for resentencing in light of the updated guidelines, rejecting the government's argument that the district court would impose the same sentence regardless. View "United States v. Easterling" on Justia Law

Eric Kyereme was indicted on five counts of wire fraud for misleading investors in his company, Sika Capital Management, LLC. He solicited $200,000 for the "Alpha Fund," which he lost through poor trading. Instead of informing investors, he created fake account statements to show positive returns. Kyereme pleaded guilty to one count but disputed his dealings with Da Zhou, a business associate who invested $133,000, allegedly for shares in RestoreFlow Allografts (RFA). The government claimed Kyereme used Zhou's money to cover Alpha Fund losses, while Kyereme argued it was a legitimate transaction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held an evidentiary hearing and found that Kyereme defrauded Zhou. The court determined that Zhou's $133,000 investment was part of the wire fraud scheme, increasing the total loss amount to $335,500. This led to a higher offense level and a sentencing range of 41 to 51 months. The court sentenced Kyereme to 36 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and ordered $185,500 in restitution, including $135,500 to Zhou.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no clear error in the district court's determination that the Zhou transaction was part of the wire fraud scheme. The court noted that the evidence, including the membership agreement and the Primrose operating agreement, supported the finding that Kyereme defrauded Zhou. The appellate court also held that Kyereme had sufficient notice that the district court would rule on the Zhou transaction at the final sentencing hearing. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed Kyereme's sentence. View "United States v. Kyereme" on Justia Law

Republic Airways Inc. and Hyannis Air Service, Inc. entered into individual employment agreements with pilot candidates, offering incentives in exchange for employment commitments. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its local unions argued that these agreements violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) because they were not bargained for and fell outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between the parties.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed the unions' complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, determining that the dispute was "minor" under the RLA and thus subject to arbitration. The court found that the resolution of the dispute required interpretation of the CBAs, which mandated arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the employment agreements were arguably justified by the broad discretionary language in the CBAs, which allowed the carriers to offer incentives and determine their terms. The court emphasized the RLA's strong preference for arbitration and concluded that the carriers' arguments were not frivolous or insubstantial. Therefore, the dispute was classified as minor and subject to arbitration, not federal court jurisdiction. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the unions' state law claim. View "International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Republic Airways Inc." on Justia Law

Ronald Williams, a driver for hire, was convicted of sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. In April 2018, Williams transported two teenage girls, Hannah Brown and Cyan Smith, for commercial sex work at the behest of his co-defendant, Kennedy Spencer. Both girls were minors and vulnerable, with histories of mental health challenges. Spencer arranged for the girls to engage in commercial sex acts, and Williams facilitated their transportation and received a portion of the earnings.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, tried Williams and Spencer jointly. On November 1, 2022, a jury found both men guilty of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and sex trafficking of both Hannah and Cyan. Williams appealed his conviction, arguing insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that Williams bore a heavy burden to overturn the jury's verdict, requiring the record to be devoid of evidence supporting guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found sufficient evidence that Williams knew Spencer intended to use the girls for commercial sex acts, facilitated their transportation, and profited from their exploitation. Additionally, the court determined that Williams had a reasonable opportunity to observe that both girls were minors, satisfying the statutory requirements under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 and § 1594.The Seventh Circuit affirmed Williams's conviction, concluding that the jury had sufficient evidence to find him guilty of sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. View "USA v Williams" on Justia Law

Wesley K. White, Jr. pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The government agreed to recommend a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range as part of a plea agreement. However, while awaiting sentencing, White violated federal law again, leading the government to seek release from its sentencing recommendation. The district court granted this motion and sentenced White to a prison term exceeding the guidelines range.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois initially handled the case. White had previously pleaded guilty to a felony firearms offense in Illinois state court and was on probation when further violations occurred. During a compliance check in 2018, authorities found a semiautomatic rifle and other firearm accessories in his residence. In 2020, White was seen in a Facebook Live video handling firearms at a shooting range. He admitted to firing the guns but claimed they were not at his residence. Subsequent searches revealed ammunition and a gun case. White was indicted for his 2018 and 2020 conduct and pleaded guilty.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that White breached the plea agreement by violating federal law through marijuana use and firearm possession. The district court did not err in its factual findings or in allowing the government to withdraw from its sentencing recommendation. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an above-guidelines sentence, considering White's history and the § 3553(a) factors. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in full. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Michael Wood incurred credit card debt with Pentagon Federal Credit Union (PenFed) and defaulted. PenFed reported the debt to credit reporting agencies, but Wood disputed the debt in writing. PenFed investigated and concluded the debt was valid. Later, Security Credit Services, LLC (SCS) purchased Wood's debt from PenFed and reported it as delinquent to a credit reporting agency without noting Wood's dispute. Wood alleged that SCS violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by failing to communicate that he disputed the debt.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of SCS. The court found that Wood had standing to sue but concluded that PenFed reasonably interpreted Wood's lack of response to its letter as an indication that he no longer disputed the debt. Therefore, the court determined that SCS did not know and should not have known that Wood still disputed the debt.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Wood had standing because the harm he alleged was analogous to defamation, a recognized common law injury. The court also found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether SCS should have known about Wood's dispute. Specifically, the court noted conflicting evidence about SCS's understanding of what constitutes a disputed account and whether SCS shared PenFed's interpretation that Wood's silence meant he no longer disputed the debt. The court concluded that SCS's failure to communicate Wood's dispute could be considered negligent under the FDCPA. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Wood v. Security Credit Services, LLC" on Justia Law