By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 27, October 2017

U.S. v. Rucker, No. 16-6415 (KETHLEDGE, Cook, Donald).

U.S. v. Rucker, No. 16-6415 (KETHLEDGE, Cook, Donald). The defendant violated the conditions of his supervised release, and the district court sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment, in part because the sentence would allow him to qualify for the Bureau of Prisons’ residential drug-abuse program. The defendant appealed the sentence, arguing that it was substantively unreasonable because it was based on an impermissible factor—rehabilitation. The Sixth Circuit agreed, vacated the sentence, and remanded. The Court noted that sentencing courts cannot… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 27, October 2017

U.S. v. White, No. 15-5793 (GRIFFIN, Gilman, Stranch).

U.S. v. White, No. 15-5793 (GRIFFIN, Gilman, Stranch). After a narcotics officer watched the defendant sell marijuana to an undercover informant in the driveway of the defendant’s home, the officer sought a search warrant for the residence based on the witnessed drug deal, a confidential tip that the defendant was selling marijuana from the residence, the defendant’s previous drug offenses, and the fact that the defendant keeps pit bulls “at his residence.” The judge issued the search warrant, and the… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 27, October 2017

Perreault v. Smith, No. 16-1213 (SUTTON, Clay Rogers).

Perreault v. Smith, No. 16-1213 (SUTTON, Clay Rogers). In this habeas petition, the petitioner argues that his statement “Well, then let’s call the lawyer then ‘cause I gave what I could” was an invocation of his right to counsel and required the police to stop questioning him. The Sixth Circuit considered whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent in holding that the statement was “akin to [a] negotiation[],” and was not an unequivocal request for… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 27, October 2017

U.S. ex rel. Ibanez v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., No. 16-3154 (McKEAGUE, Kethledge, Stranch).

U.S. ex rel. Ibanez v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., No. 16-3154 (McKEAGUE, Kethledge, Stranch). The relators filed this qui tam False Claims Act claim against two pharmaceutical companies, alleging that the companies participated in a complex, nationwide scheme to improperly promote the antipsychotic drug Abilify, which caused false claims to be submitted to the government. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the qui tam claims, and denied the plaintiffs an opportunity to file a third amended… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 26, October 2017

Wilson v. Sheldon, No. 16-3981 (DONALD, Sutton, Thapar).

Wilson v. Sheldon, No. 16-3981 (DONALD, Sutton, Thapar). In 1993, police found a woman unresponsive and bleeding from the head. A bloody, 110-pound boulder was lying near the body. The police collected evidence, including the boulder, and classified the case as a felonious-assault investigation. The woman later died from her injuries, but the police neglected to change the case’s classification to “homicide,” and therefore the evidence was destroyed after the statute of limitations for felonious assault ran. Over a decade… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 26, October 2017

U.S. v. Haroon, No. 16-3440 (SUTTON, Donald, Thapar).

U.S. v. Haroon, No. 16-3440 (SUTTON, Donald, Thapar). The defendant was convicted of knowingly procuring his citizenship contrary to law by making false statements in immigration documents. He appealed, arguing that the district court misinstructed the jury when it instructed that the government must “prove facts that raise a fair inference that the material false statement, if disclosed, would have made the person ineligible,” but then stated that the government need not show that the false statement “would more likely… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 25, October 2017

In re Campbell, No. 17-3855 (Gibbons, McKeague) (per curiam) (Moore, dissenting).

In re Campbell, No. 17-3855 (Gibbons, McKeague) (per curiam) (Moore, dissenting). An Ohio prisoner sentenced to death filed a § 2254 habeas petition challenging Ohio’s lethal injection protocol. His petition was sent to the Sixth Circuit for initial review because the district court held that the petition was a successive habeas petition. The prisoner moved the Sixth Circuit to remand his petition to the district court. After reviewing the law and history relating to method-of-execution habeas challenges to death sentences,… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 23, October 2017

AuSable River Trading Post, LLC v. Dovetail Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 17-1283 (DONALD, Sutton, Thapar).

AuSable River Trading Post, LLC v. Dovetail Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 17-1283 (DONALD, Sutton, Thapar). The city of Tawas, Michigan, hosts an annual winter festival called “Perchville,” and has had a registered trademark for “Perchville” since 2003. The corporation that manages the city’s Chamber of Commerce sued an employee of AuSable to obtain an injunction against his unauthorized use of the term “Perchville” on t-shirts. The court granted an injunction against him, as well as “on those persons in… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 20, October 2017

Barbara Bays v. Montmorency County, Mich., et al., Nos. 16-2761/17-1215 (SUTTON, Clay, Rogers).

Barbara Bays v. Montmorency County, Mich., et al., Nos. 16-2761/17-1215 (SUTTON, Clay, Rogers). The parents of a man who killed himself in jail after describing symptoms of a mental illness to a jail nurse filed a § 1983 suit against Montmorency County officials, alleging violations of the man’s Fourteenth Amendment right to sufficient treatment for a serious medical problem. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment to the County, and denied the plaintiffs’… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 20, October 2017

U.S. v. Verwiebe, No. 16-2591 (SUTTON, Clay, Rogers) (Amended Opinion).

U.S. v. Verwiebe, No. 16-2591 (SUTTON, Clay, Rogers) (Amended Opinion). This opinion amends the Court's September 17, 2017 opinion. In this amended opinion, the Court added to its discussion of whether assault resulting in serious bodily injury, 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6), is a “crime of violence” for purposes of satisfying the career-offender enhancement of Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1. The defendant had argued that crimes that require only a showing of “recklessness” cannot qualify as a crime of violence under U.S.… Read more