U.S. Seventh Circuit - The FindLaw 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

July 2009 News

US v. Dean, No. 08-3287

Conviction for drug crimes is affirmed where there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that defendant  intentionally joined the charged drug conspiracy. Sentence is vacated and remanded where the court did not make an adequate finding of the quantity of drugs reasonably foreseeable to defendant, a crucial element in determining the proper base offense level.   

Read US v. Dean, No. 08-3287

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division.
Argued: May 27, 2009
Decided: July 31, 2009

Judges
Before CUDAHY, RIPPLE and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by RIPPLE Circuit Judge.

French v. Wachovia Bank, No. 08-2197

In an arbitration dispute, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the present court has jurisdiction over defendant's appeal as an interlocutory appeal from the order denying arbitration was appropriate under Federal Arbitration Act sec. 16(a)(1); and 2) the district court properly denied the motion to compel arbitration as the operative complaint contained no arbitrable claim.    

Read French v. Wachovia Bank, No. 08-2197

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Argued: May 14, 2009
Decided: July 31, 2009

Judges
Before RIPPLE, MANION and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.

Sandoval v. US, No. 07-4005

District court order denying petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction on grounds that the government violated his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is affirmed where the court properly concluded that petitioner's claim was procedurally barred as petitioner raised the argument for the first time and claims cannot be raised for the first time in a motion to vacate if they could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal, and petitioner also failed to show he suffered prejudiced by the denial. Plaintiff's certificate of appealability cannot be expanded to include a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective as plaintiff cannot show that reasonable jurists could debate whether his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by eliciting the testimony in question.   

Read Sandoval v. US, No. 07-4005


Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois..
Argued: April 17, 2009
Decided: July 31, 2009

Judges
Before FLAUM, EVANS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

Hollins v. City of Milwaukee, No. 08-3505

In an action brought under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 and the First Amendment, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on a claim of municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 as he didn't provide any evidence that the City of Milwaukee failed to train its officers and showed deliberate indifference to the rights of individuals with whom the officers came into contact; 2) the court properly granted summary on the First Amendment claim as plaintiff offered no evidence to support his claim; 3) the court did not err during voir dire in refusing to ask the jurors plaintiff's proposed question; 4) the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow into evidence questions concerning allegations of misconduct by one of the officers, as further questioning would have been of limited probative value; and 5) the court did not err by refusing to present the jury with plaintiff's proposed instruction concerning the lawfulness of his arrest and the scope of the municipal ordinance that he was charged with violating.    

Read Hollins v. City of Milwaukee, No. 08-3505

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Argued: April 10, 2009
Decided: July 31, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, FLAUM and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by BAUER, Circuit Judge.

Addis v. Dept. of Labor, No. 08-1009

Petition for review of the Department of Labor's dismissal of plaintiff's employment retaliation claim is denied where substantive evidence supported an ALJ's finding that plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proving that her protected activity was a contributing factor in her termination, as her employer refused plaintiff's  attempt to rescind her resignation because the company was unhappy with her substandard performance and not in retaliation for filing a safety complaint.    

Read Addis v. Dept. of Labor, No. 08-1009

Appellate Information
Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Labor
Argued: November 4, 2008
Decided: July 30, 2009

Judges
Before POSNER, WOOD, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by TINDER, Circuit Judge.

Emerson v. Shaw, No. 07-3160

District court's denial of plaintiff's petition for habeas corpus is affirmed where: 1) the court did not unreasonably apply Strickland in concluding that petitioner's counsel was not ineffective and that he was not prejudiced by the allegedly deficient defense; and 2) it was not unreasonable for the court to conclude that even if plaintiff's counsel objected to the disputed instruction and preserved his argument under Childs, plaintiff could still not show prejudice under Strickland and would not have been resentenced.    

Read Emerson v. Shaw, No. 07-3160

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued: September 12, 2008
Decided: July 30, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and SYKES and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SYKES, Circuit Judge.

Valentino v. Village of South Chicago Heights, No. 06-3882

In an action for First Amendment retaliation and retaliatory discharge, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff established a prima facie case for retaliation and presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that defendants' stated reason for terminating her employment was pretextual; 2) plaintiff's Monell claim may proceed to trial as plaintiff has shown that the mayor was the final policymaker for defendant, such that defendant may be held liable if the jury finds that the mayor and village administrator retaliated against her in violation of her First Amendment rights; and 3) defendant is not entitled to immunity under the the Illinois Tort Immunity Act from plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claim as the decision to fire her did not amount to a policy decision as defined by the Illinois courts. 

Read Valentino v. Village of South Chicago Heights, No. 06-3882

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued: May 12, 2008
Decided: July 30, 2009

Judges
Before ROVNER, EVANS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

In a trademark dispute, district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the court properly granted summary judgment for plaintiff as defendant missed the deadline for responding to a request for admissions, and the Italian judgment in defendant's postdates the American one, and thus cannot be pleaded as res judicata; and 2) the court erred in awarding lost profits and statutory damages, as the lost profits are compensatory damages, and statutory damages may be awarded only in cases in which compensatory damages are not awarded for the same violation.    

Read Gabbanelli Accordians & Imports, L.L.C. v. Ditta Gabbanelli Ubaldo Di Elio Gabbanelli, No. 08-1569

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued: January 21, 2009
Decided: July 30, 2009

Judges
Before POSNER, FLAUM, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by POSNER, Circuit Judge.

Quinn v. Gates, No. 08-2767

In an action brought by the Governor of Illinois challenging certain recommendations brought under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act, district court judgment is modified and affirmed where the  governor's actions in invoking 32 U.S.C. sec. 104(c), which prohibits redeployment without gubernatorial consent, for the declared purpose of excluding its one base from the Commission's realignment program is forbidden by the Realignment Act, as the Act supersedes any statute that is incompatible with the Act's all-or-none feature.    

Read Quinn v. Gates, No. 08-2767

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
Argued June 3, 2009
Decided July 29, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge.

Johnson v. Saville, No. 08-4314

In a malicious prosecution action, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant acted with probable cause when investigating the charges against plaintiff, preparing his report for the State's Attorney, and testifying before the grand jury, giving him a complete defense to plaintiff's state malicious prosecution claim.   

Read Johnson v. Saville, No. 08-4314

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued May 28, 2009
Decided July 29, 2009

Judges
Before EVANS, WILLIAMS, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by TINDER, Circuit Judge.

US v. Hurt, No. 08-2986

Conviction and sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where: 1) the issue of the testimony of officers as both fact and expert witnesses was waived as there was no objection to the officers testifying in both capacities during trial; 2) any error in the government's failure to  disclose the names of the testifying experts was harmless as defendant knew the names of the expert officers and the subject of their intended testimony before they testified; and 3) the court did not err in sentencing defendant to the lowest end of the career offender Guidelines range as it began with the Guidelines as its benchmark and did not deviate from them after it balanced the 18 U.S.C. sec. 3553(a) factors.    

Read US v. Hurt, No. 08-2986

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Argued April 2, 2009
Decided: July 28, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER and FLAUM, Circuit Judges, and KAPALA, District Judge.
Opinion by BAUER, Circuit Judge.

Dobbey v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, No. 08-2828

In a prisoner civil rights action, district court judgment is affirmed in part where the court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim of having been subjected to a cruel and unusual punishment as the prison guard's actions could have not have reasonably be taken seriously as a threat. The dismissal of plaintiff's claim that his right of free speech was infringed is reversed and remanded where plaintiff's was not merely a personal gripe, and his punishment may have been in retaliation for uttering the grievance and thus an infringement of his freedom of speech. 

Read Dobbey v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, No. 08-2828

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Argued June 9, 2009
Decided: July 28, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, POSNER, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by POSNER, Circuit Judge.

Martino v. MCI Communications Services, Inc., No. 08-2405

In a discrimination action brought under Age Discrimination in Employment ACt, district court judgment is affirmed where plaintiff failed to show directly or indirectly that there was intentional age discrimination in the defendant's reduction in workforce decision to fire him.    

Read Martino v. MCI Communications Services, Inc., No. 08-2405

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued May 28, 2009
Decided: July 28, 2009

Judges
Before CUDAHY, EVANS, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by EVANS, Circuit Judge.

Wyatt v. US, No. 08-1465

Denial of plainitff's pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255 is affirmed where plaintiff did not establish that his counsel's assistance during the plea, sentencing, and direct appeal phases of his case was ineffective under Strickland.    

Read Wyatt v. US, No. 08-1465

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Argued: April 16, 2009
Decided: July 28, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and MANION, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by MANION, Circuit Judge.

In an action challenging provisions of the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, district court judgment is vacated for lack of jurisdiction where plaintiff is a public agency established under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, and thus cannot sue another state agency in federal court as it is outside the scope of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and blocked by the Eleventh Amendment.    

Read Indiana Protection and Advocacy Serv. v. Indiana Family and Social Serv. Admin., No. 08-3183

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
Argued: January 29, 2009
Decided: July 28, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, SYKES, Circuit Judge, and KENDALL, District Judge
Opinion by EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge.

Johnson v. Hulett, No. 06-2458

District court's denial of plaintiff's petition for habeas corpus in a murder case is affirmed where the court properly held that the claims plaintiff  raised in her habeas petition were procedurally defaulted as the petition did not raise any of the three theories of ineffective assistance of counsel she presented to the state appellate court and thus could not be asserted on appeal.    

Read Johnson v. Hulett, No. 06-2458


Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued March 31, 2008
Decided: July 27, 2009

Judges
Before KANNE, EVANS, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SYKES, Circuit Judge.

Figueras v. Holder, No. 08-3367

Petition for review of an order denying adjustment of status is granted where the Board of Immigration Appeals violated plaintiff's statutory right to a reasonable opportunity to present her evidence of eligibility for adjustment of status by refusing to either remand the case to allow the IJ to consider her additional evidence or rule on the merits of her proposed alternative theory of adjustment eligibility as a matter of law.   

Read Figueras v. Holder, No. 08-3367

Appellate Information
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Argued February 26, 2009
Decided: July 27, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SYKES, Circuit Judge.

Casna v. City of Loves Park, No. 07-1044

In an employment termination action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff is entitled to proceed to trial on her due-process claim as she had a property interest in continuing employment and defendant deprived her of it without a hearing; and 2) an informal complaint may constitute protected activity for purposes of retaliation claims under the ADA; and 3) there is a triable issue as to whether the employer initiated plaintiff's discharge because she had just protested her supervisor's possibly discriminatory attitude or because her work performance was inadequate.    

Read Casna v. City of Loves Park, No. 07-1044

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division.ivision.
Argued October 30, 2007
Decided July 24, 2009

Judges
Before MANION, ROVNER and SYKES, Circuit Judges. 
Opinion by ROVNER Circuit Judge.

Botvinick v. Rush Univ. Medical Center, No. 08-1966

In an action for tortious interference with plaintiff's expectation of employment, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to create a triable issue on whether there was purposeful interference by the defendant that prevented the plaintiff's legitimate expectancy of employment from ripening into a valid business relationship, as he had no evidence that defendants prevented him from obtaining clinical privileges at the hospitals in question.    

Read Botvinick v. Rush Univ. Medical Center, No. 08-1966

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued April 6, 2009
Decided July 24, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, SYKES, and TINDER, Circuit Judges. 
Opinion by TINDER, Circuit Judge.

US v. Alviar, No. 07-2333

Conviction and sentence for drug crimes and conspiracy is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendants' gang affiliation as it was relevant to proving the allegations set forth in the indictment; 2) court did not err in refusing to sever defendant Madrigal from the trial; 3) the court properly accepted the government's Santiago proffer, as it gave the court sufficient evidence to conclude that the government met the preconditions for admission of co-conspirator statements; 4) the court did not err in allowing testimony about a prior consistent statement of a witness who was alleged to have fabricated testimony about defendant Delgado-Rios or in allowing defendant's mother-in-law to testify; 5) the prosecutor's disputed statement was not improper vouching, and the improper remark did not render defendant Delgado-Rios's trial fundamentally unfair; 6) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant Meloro's motion to bifurcate the trial; 7) the court did not err in enhancing defendant Tejada's offense level based on leadership; and 8) the court properly sentenced defendant Madrigal based on the drug quantities within the range found by the jury.      

Read US v. Alviar, No. 07-2333

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued April 15, 2009
Decided July 23, 2009

Judges
Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

US v. Hensley, No. 08-1204

Conviction and sentence for attempting to solicit a minor for sex is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's prior online relationship with another minor; 2) there was sufficient evidence to show that defendant took a substantial step towards the completion of the offense; and 3) the court did not err in its calculation of defendant's advisory guidelines range for sentencing.   

Read US v. Hensley, No. 08-1204

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.
Argued April 9, 2009
Decided July 23, 2009

Judges
Before MANION, ROVNER, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by MANION, Circuit Judge.

Love v. National City Corp. Welfare Benefits Plan, No. 08-1722

In a dispute involving the termination of disability benefits, district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where defendant's initial termination letter and subsequent letter denying plaintiff's appeal were both insufficient to meet ERISA's requirement that specific and understandable reasons for a denial be communicated to the claimant.      

Read Love v. National City Corp. Welfare Benefits Plan, No. 08-1722

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued October 21, 2008
Decided July 23, 2009

Judges
Before RIPPLE, EVANS, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SYKES, Circuit Judge.

Wolf v. Ford Kennelly, No. 08-2203

District court order barring plaintiff's petition for attorney's fees for defendant's attempted removal is reversed where removal was foreclosed by clearly established law at the time defendant filed his notice in federal court, and thus defendant lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal and the court can award attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1447(c).      

Read Wolf v. Ford Kennelly, No. 08-2203

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued May 28, 2009
Decided July 23, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, FLAUM, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

Starkweather v. Smith, No. 08-2354

District court judgment denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed where plaintiff's counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel as counsel was not required under the Sixth Amendment to explain the basis for his legal advice to plaintiff, and plaintiff was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to introduce testimony from plaintiff's mother.      

Read Starkweather v. Smith, No. 08-2354

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Argued October 22, 2008
Decided July 23, 2009

Judges
Before CUDAHY, MANION, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.

Lopez v. Thurmer, No. 07-3009

District court's denial of plaintiff's petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed where, although the Wisconsin appellate court applied a methodology based on an unreasonable reading of the decisions of the Supreme Court and thus improperly endorsed the trial court's abnegation of its non-delegable responsibility to determine the appropriate security measures for a jury view of the crime scene, the Wisconsin court did not run afoul of any clearly established principle of federal law when it determined that the security measures taken did not violate plaintiff's federal constitutional right to due process of law, and any error was harmless.    

Read Lopez v. Thurmer, No. 07-3009

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.s Division.
Argued September 26, 2008
Decided July 22, 2009

Judges
Before RIPPLE, MANION and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.

Brock v. US, No. 07-3504

Conviction and sentence for drug crimes and firearms possession is affirmed where the court properly denied plaintiff's motion under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255 as plaintiff's claim that newly discovered evidence would have triggered the exclusionary rule if presented earlier is barred by Stone v. Powell's limitation on the exclusionary rule in collateral attacks.    

Read Brock v. US, No. 07-3504

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
Argued January 16, 2009
Decided July 22, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, FLAUM and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by BAUER, Circuit Judge.

Simila v. Astrue, No. 07-3682

In a dispute involving plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the ALJ did not err in declining to place significant weight on plaintiff's doctor's findings regarding the intensity of plaintiff's impairments as the ALJ discerned and discussed the evidence and found that it failed to support the doctor's conclusions; 2) the ALJ's determination of plaintiff's credibility was not patently wrong as the judge properly considered plaintiff's subjective complaints and the evidence undermining the credibility of those complaints; 3) the ALJ's hypothetical questions to the vocational expert did not omit key facts and incorporated all of plaintiff's credible limitation; and 4) the court properly decided against remand where plaintiff's doctor's letter clarifying his prior opinion was not new and material evidence.   

Read Simila v. Astrue, No. 07-3682

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Argued May 29, 2009
Decided July 22, 2009

Judges
Before CUDAHY, POSNER, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by TINDER, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff's motion to compel the payment of costs is granted and the defendants ordered to pay the costs previously ordered by the court of appeals where the original award of costs was a permissible exercise of the court's discretion, and there was no operative bill of costs in the district court which could be set off against those awarded to plaintiff in the appeal.   

Read Smart v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 702, No. 07-4088

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Decided July 22, 2009

Judges
Before RIPPLE, KANNE and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Per Curium Opinion

Hobbs v. City of Chicago, No. 07-3591

In an employment discrimination action, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) for purposes of plaintiff's race and gender discrimination actions, plaintiff failed to show she was similarly or better qualified than the white male who received the promotions, and failed to show the city's offered non-discriminatory reasons for promoting the other candidate were pretextual; 2) plaintiff's retaliation claim failed as she did not prove that she suffered a materially adverse action taken by the employer, and that there was a causal connection between a materially adverse action and her engagement in statutorily protected activity; and 3) plaintiff's hostile work environment claim fails as the conduct complained of by plaintiff did not rise to the level of being severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of the environment and create a hostile and abusive working environment.    

Read Hobbs v. City of Chicago, No. 07-3591

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued October 20, 2008
Decided July 21, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, KANNE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

US v. Alexander, No. 07-3718

Conviction for firearms possession is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in defendant's car as a warrantless search of the car and the bag found in the engine compartment was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; and 2) the court properly refused to suppress evidence obtained from a search of an apartment as the officers had probable cause to search the apartment, the evidence was also admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine, and the occupant of the apartment voluntarily gave her consent to the search.    

Read US v. Alexander, No. 07-3718

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Argued September 4, 2008
Decided July 21, 2009

Judges
Before MANION, WOOD, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by TINDER, Circuit Judge.

Catlin v. City of Wheaton, No. 07-3903

In a civil rights action for false arrest and excessive force, summary judgment for defendants based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) officers reasonably believed that the person arrested was the person sought; and 2) the officers' use of force was not excessive, as the amount of force the defendants used to restrain defendant was reasonable, and it was not clearly established that defendants had a constitutional duty to identify themselves after they initially immobilized but before they fully restrained him.   

Read Catlin v. City of Wheaton, No. 07-3903

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued May 11, 2009
Decided July 21, 2009

Judges
Before CUDAHY, POSNER, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.

US v. McNeil, No. 08-1772

Sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm is reversed where the district court erred by not determining the status of defendant's 2004 state sentence, as defendant and the government agreed to a recommendation that defendant would receive concurrent time with any state sentence he was serving. The case is remanded so that the court may supplement the record to determine the status of defendant's 2004 sentence and whether the federal sentence should be ordered to run concurrent with it, as well as with his sentences from 2001.   

Read US v. McNeil, No. 08-1772

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Argued February 10, 2009
Decided July 21, 2009

Judges
Before CUDAHY, WILLIAMS and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.

Milwaukee Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. Clarke, No. 08-3298

In an action claiming retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the officer's disputed statements were not a matter of public concern, and thus were not protected by the First Amendment; and 2) the revised confidentiality policy issued by the Sheriff's Office did not constitute an unlawful prior restraint because it regulates only speech not subject to First Amendment protection. 

Read Milwaukee Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. Clarke, No. 08-3298

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Argued February 13, 2009
Decided July 21, 2009

Judges
Before KANNE, ROVNER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by KANNE, Circuit Judge.

US v. Knox, No. 06-4101

Sentence for drug crimes is vacated where: 1) two defendants were entitled to a remand for resentencing in light of Kimbrough as no congressional directive prohibited the district court from considering defendants' sentencing argument based on the crack/powder disparity affecting career offenders convicted of drug conspiracy offenses under 21 U.S.C. sec. 846; and 2) another defendant is granted a limited remand at which the district court should indicate whether it would have sentenced him differently had it known of its discretion under Kimbrough. Two defendants' sentences are affirmed in all other respects.    

Read US v. Knox, No. 06-4101

Appellate Information
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued September 18, 2008
Decided July 20, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and SYKES and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by TINDER, Circuit Judge.

In re Gallo, No. 08-1315

Bankruptcy court order denying the petitioner's former wife's proof of claim for slander of title is affirmed where: 1) petitioner did not commit slander of title by improperly filing a lis pendens notice as even assuming the notice of lis pendens was filed in error, petitioner acted in good faith and there was no showing of malice on his part; and 2) the bankruptcy court properly granted petitioner's motion for turnover as his former wife failed to establish that the bankruptcy court had any obligation to ensure her ability to pay the judgment before granting the turnover motion. 

Read In re Gallo, No. 08-1315


Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
Argued April 7, 2009
Decided July 20, 2009

Judges
Before POSNER, RIPPLE and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by RIPPLE Circuit Judge.

In re Turner, No. 08-2163

Bankruptcy court order rejecting bankruptcy trustee's objection to Chapter 13 petitioner's deduction of monthly mortgage payments from his disposable income is reversed where the deduction of mortgage expenses from the Chapter 13 debtor's disposable income is not intended to enrich the debtor at the expense of his unsecured creditors but is intended to adjust the respective rights of the mortgagee and the unsecured creditors, and petitioner cannot use a phantom deduction to reduce the recovery by his unsecured creditors without benefiting any other creditor.    

Read In re Turner, No. 08-2163

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
Argued May 12, 2009
Decided July 20, 2009

Judges
Before POSNER and SYKES, Circuit Judges, and VAN BOKKELEN, District Judge.
Opinion by POSNER, Circuit Judge.
VAN BOKKELEN, District Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
SYKES, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

US v. Polack, No. 08-3381

Sentence for theft is affirmed where the district court's failure to properly follow Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and inquire about the appellate waiver during the plea colloquy does not constitute plain error warranting remand as the totality of the circumstances shows that defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.   

Read US v. Polack, No. 08-3381

Appellate Information
Appeal from the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Argued February 25, 2009
Decided July 20, 2009

Judges
Before FLAUM, WILLIAMS, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

US v. Carter, No. 09-1608

District court order suppressing disputed evidence related to a bank robbery charge against defendant is reversed where: 1) the out of court identification of defendant based on evidence seized from his apartment was admissible under an attenuation theory as the officer did not know  or should have that the search was likely to be unconstitutional, and thus there was no flagrant and purposeful misconduct that merits application of the exclusionary rule to evidence unearthed subsequent to the warrantless search; 2) the bait bills tying defendant to the robbery were admissible as consent to the search was a sufficient intervening event to break the causal chain between the illegal search, and a search where the bills were found; and 3) defendant's confession was admissible as there was probable cause for his arrest.    

Read US v. Carter, No. 09-1608

Appellate Information
Appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued March 4, 2009
Decided July 20, 2009

Judges
Before FLAUM, WOOD, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

In re MarchFIRST, Inc., No. 06-2738

Bankruptcy court judgment sustaining the objection to creditor Avnet, Inc.'s untimely claim against the estate of MarchFIRST in a bankruptcy proceeding is affirmed where: 1) the court properly rejected Avnet's argument that MarchFIRST should have accepted the faxed submission of its proof of claim forms, as the bankruptcy notice was sufficiently clear that submission by mail or by hand were the only permissible methods of transmittal; and 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to deem Avnet's claim timely under Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 5005(c), as Avnet did not offer convincing justification or explanation for its untimely filing.    

Read In re MarchFIRST, Inc., No. 06-2738

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Heard October 21, 2008
Decided July 17, 2009

Judges
Before RIPPLE, EVANS, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SYKES, Circuit Judge.

Mays v. Springborn, No. 05-3630

In a prisoner civil rights action, rulings against plaintiff are affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff did not present evidence to call into question the prison's explanation for denying him dietary supplements; 2) plaintiff failed to show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a risk posed by his diet; 3) the court properly ruled against plaintiff's claim that the prison provided him with inadequate clothing as the evidence does not rise to the level of objectively serious harm necessary to show an Eighth Amendment violation; and 4) the court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law on his censorship claim as prisons have great latitude in limiting the reading material of prisoners. Judgment is vacated where: 1) the court should have let plaintiff's strip search claim go to the jury as there was relevant evidence on which the jury could have relied to conclude that the searches were done with an intent to harass; and 2) plaintiff's retaliation claim raised factual questions that should have gone to the jury.    

Read Mays v. Springborn, No. 05-3630

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
Argued June 23, 2009
Decided July 15, 2009

Judges
Before CUDAHY, POSNER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Per Curium Opinion

Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 07-1019

In an action for breach of contract and other related claims, district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where defendant produced evidence that called into question plaintiff's standing to sue, and in response, plaintiff brought forward no competent evidence to establish the court's jurisdiction.    

Read Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 07-1019

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued June 2, 2009
Decided July 15, 2009

Judges
Before POSNER, RIPPLE, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Consumer Products Research & Design, Inc. v. Jensen, No. 07-2599

In an action for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, district court judgment against defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendant's failure to file a postverdict motion under FRCP Rule 50(b) forfeited all of their claims regarding insufficiency of the evidence; and 2) the court did not abuse its discretion when instructing the jury during the damages phase; and 3) the defendants failed to properly preserve an objection to the court's decision to not give the Party-In-Interest jury instruction during the liability phase of the trial.    

Read Consumer Products Research & Design, Inc. v. Jensen, No. 07-2599

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Argued September 16, 2008
Decided July 15, 2009

Judges
Before CUDAHY, FLAUM and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by ROVNER, Circuit Judge.

Trade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp., No. 08-2013

In an action for breach of contract and fraud, district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff is not entitled to payment under its agreement with defendant as no reasonable juror could find that plaintiff secured the contract in question on defendant's behalf; 2) plaintiff's claim that defendant breached their agreement by failing to complete an RFI for the Northwest account fails as defendant did not secure the contract in question; and 3) plaintiff's fraud claim fails as there is no evidence that defendant did not intend to perform its obligations at the time it signed the agreement.    

Read Trade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp., No. 08-2013

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division..
Argued January 6, 2009
Decided July 15, 2009

Judges
Before KANNE, WOOD, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by KANNE, Circuit Judge

US v. Terry, No. 08-3411

Conviction for drug crimes is affirmed where the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress as there is no basis to reassess the credibility of the sole witness, and there was nothing in the record that compelled a conclusion that the government acted illegally in identifying a co-defendant's telephone number.   

Read US v. Terry, No. 08-3411

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Argued March 30, 2009
Decided July 15, 2009

Judges
Before KANNE, WOOD, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by KANNE, Circuit Judge.

US v. York, No. 07-2032

Conviction and sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly admitted the majority of agents' interpretation testimony of the coded language of the narcotics trade; 2) a failure to exclude three interpretations as improper dual testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as the evidence against defendant was overwhelming, and the exclusion would not have resulted in a different verdict; and 3) defendant's motion to remand his sentence is denied as remand is not required to petition the district court to reduce his sentence in light of the retroactive application of the revised crack guidelines.    

Read US v. York, No. 07-2032

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued April 17, 2008
Decided July 15, 2009

Judges
Before RIPPLE, MANION, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by TINDER, Circuit Judge.

Gicla v. US, No. 08-1648

In a medical malpractice action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court did not abuse its decision in allowing certain expert testimony as there was no evidence that plaintiff was unduly prejudiced by an unannounced review of x-rays by the expert; and 2) the court did not err in its evaluation of witness credibility and in crediting the witness' opinions as to the propriety of the care that plaintiff received. 

Read Gicla v. US, No. 08-1648

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued January 13, 2009
Decided July 15, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, POSNER, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by ROVNER, Circuit Judge.

Jin v. Holder, No. 07-1717

Petition for review of an order affirming the denial of petitioner's  claims for asylum and withholding of removal is denied where petitioner did not present any evidence that he suffered persecution or will suffer persecution as a result of a refusal to undergo forced sterilization or other resistance to a coercive population control program.   

Read Jin v. Holder, No. 07-1717

Appellate Information
Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: January 14, 2009
Decided: July 14, 2009

Judges
Before CUDAHY, KANNE, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.

Zbaraz v. Madigan, No. 08-1620

In a case involving an abortion parental notification law, an order denying defendant's motion to dissolve a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 is reversed and the is injunction dissolved where: 1) the court properly ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the Rule 59 motion as the proposed intervenors were not before the court when they filed it; 2) the Illinois Supreme Court's adoption of Rule 303A completes the Act, and since the notice statute is otherwise constitutional on its face, applying the injunction prospectively is no longer equitable and it must be lifted; and 3) the  Illinois parental notification statute is constitutional on its face under the relevant criteria for consent statutes, and therefore it satisfies any criteria that are required for bypass provisions in notice statutes.    

Read Zbaraz v. Madigan, No. 08-1620

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued: January 14, 2009
Decided: July 14, 2009

Judges
Before CUDAHY, KANNE and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.

Johnson v. Acevedo, No. 08-1731

In a case involving a violent armed robbery of a MacDonald's restaurant, grant of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed where: 1) the challenged questions asked by the prosecution at trial did not transgress the holding of Doyle; and 2) the state appellate court analysis of the harmless error question was a reasonable application of the Chapman standard.    

Read Johnson v. Acevedo, No. 08-1731

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued: September 3, 2008
Decided: July 14, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and CUDAHY and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge.

US v. Calabrese, No. 08-2861

Conviction and sentence for robbery and using a firearm in connection with those crimes is affirmed where: 1) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's severance motion as defendant failed to establish that holding a single trial caused him actual prejudice; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion via the admission of an audiotape as the conversation on the audiotape was relevant and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; 3) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; and 4) the court's below-guidelines concurrent sentences on each of the robbery counts was not unreasonable, particularly considering the violent nature of the robberies and defendant's pivotal role.    

Read US v. Calabrese, No. 08-2861

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued: May 28, 2009
Decided: July 14, 2009

Judges
Before EVANS, WILLIAMS, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by EVANS, Circuit Judge.

US v. Jackson, No. 08-3188

Sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where district court properly denied defendant's motion to have his sentence retroactively amended pursuant to the amended Sentencing Guideline section 2D1.1, as defendant was not sentenced on the basis of a crack cocaine quantity but instead under the unamended Guidelines' career offender provision.    

Read US v. Jackson, No. 08-3188

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division.
Argued April 10, 2009
Decided July 13, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, FLAUM and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by BAUER, Circuit Judge.

BKCAP, LLC v. CAPTEC Franchise Trust 2000-1, No. 08-3239

In a dispute involving the correct interpretation of contract language, district court's judgment is remanded where resolving the intended meaning of the the contract on summary judgment was inappropriate as the contract language defining the Prepayment Premium was ambiguous.    

Read BKCAP, LLC v. CAPTEC Franchise Trust 2000-1, No. 08-3239

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division.
Argued April 6, 2009
Decided July 13, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, SYKES, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by TINDER, Circuit Judge.

US v. Quintero, No. 08-4033

Conviction for drug crimes and forfeiture of property is affirmed where a failure to include the forfeiture of defendant's car in the judgment was a clerical error that the district court properly corrected under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.    

Read US v. Quintero, No. 08-4033

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Argued MAY 26, 2009
Decided JULY 13, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and POSNER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by BAUER, Circuit Judge.

In re US, No. 09-226

Petition for a writ of mandamus seeking the recusal of the respondent district judge currently presiding over a criminal action is granted where the Government has established that a reasonable, well‐informed observer might question the impartiality of the judge. The judge is directed to remove himself from further proceedings in this matter, and all orders entered by the judge after the motion for recusal was filed must be vacated. 

Read In re US, No. 09-226

Appellate Information
Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Filed: July 10, 2009

Judges
Before RIPPLE, ROVNER and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.

Petition for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board is denied where substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that the parties agreed to extend the previous collective bargaining agreement, including the management rights clause. 

Read Local 65-B, Graphic Communications Conference of the Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. NLRB, No. 08-4045

Appellate Information
Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.
Submitted: May 29, 2009
Filed: July 10, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, FLAUM, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

Narducci v. Moore, No. 06-3427

In a class action against local government officials for surreptitiously recording phone calls from the local finance department, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment brought under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 and Title III, district court's denial of summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of a violation of the Fourth Amendment to withstand summary judgment, as he demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy in his phone line at work and that the workplace search was unreasonable in scope; 2) at the time of the recording, it was sufficiently clear that government employees enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace to preclude qualified immunity; and 3) the district court properly found that defendants waived the qualified immunity defense to the Title III claims as they failed to raise the issue in their original submission. 

Read Narducci v. Moore, No. 06-3427

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.on.
Argued May 7, 2009
Decided July 9, 2009

Judges
Before FLAUM and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and LAWRENCE, District Judge.
Opinion by FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

U.S. NeuroSurgical, Inc. v. City of Chicago, No. 07-3520

In a breach of contract action, district court judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the purported agreement that the project manager entered into with plaintiff on the city's behalf exceeds the limits of the city's power to contract, as the project manager was not the city's procurement officer and had no statutory authority to bind the city in contract, and defendant is charged with knowing the level of authority the project manager actually possessed; 2) any oral modifications to the contract prohibited both by the contract and by statute; 3) the purported contract was prohibited by law and therefore void, and cannot be rendered valid by estoppel or ratification; 4) since the purported modified contract was void for lack of authority, the city was not liable for additional payment, and thus defendant cannot create an original liability on an account stated theory; and 5) the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs to the city. 


Read U.S. NeuroSurgical, Inc. v. City of Chicago, No. 07-3520

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.on.
Argued January 23, 2009
Decided July 9, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, EVANS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by BAUER, Circuit Judge.

US v. Moore, No. 07-3978

Conviction for bank robbery and using a firearm during a robbery is affirmed where there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant on both counts as the the jury could rationally connect defendant's presence in the house to the description of Robber #2, and defendant's work in the bank vault aided and abetted the use of the firearm in the robbery. 

Read US v. Moore, No. 07-3978

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.
Argued November 4, 2008
Decided July 9, 2009

Judges
Before POSNER, WOOD, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by TINDER, Circuit Judge.

Mister v. Northeast Illinois Commuter R.R. Corp., No, 08-2234

District court judgment finding a handwritten report and accompanying testimony inadmissible is affirmed where: 1) the court erred when it did not classify the report as an admission by a party opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D); and 2) the court did not abuse its discretion when it found the record inadmissible under Rule 403, as the report was unreliable based on the multiple levels of hearsay and lack of precise factual statements. 

Read Mister v. Northeast Illinois Commuter R.R. Corp., No, 08-2234

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued February 11, 2009
Decided July 9, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, RIPPLE and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by BAUER, Circuit Judge.

Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki, No. 08-2527

In a class action challenging the Wisconsin policy of allowing graduates of law schools in the state to be admitted to practice law without taking the Wisconsin bar exam, district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is reversed and remanded where the case was dismissed prematurely, since questions remain as to whether the diploma privilege discriminates against graduates of out-of state law schools who would like to practice law in Wisconsin and burdens interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause. 

Read Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki, No. 08-2527

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Argued April 7, 2009
Decided July 9, 2009

Judges
Before POSNER, RIPPLE, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by POSNER, Circuit Judge.

US v. James, No. 08-3327

Conviction for armed bank robbery and brandishing a firearm is affirmed where the court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress, as defendant's mother had actual and apparent authority to consent to the search of his safe, and the government submitted sufficient evidence to conclude that defendant's mother voluntarily consented to the search through her words and actions. 

Read US v. James, No. 08-3327

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Argued May 7, 2009
Decided July 9, 2009

Judges
Before FLAUM and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and LAWRENCE, District Judge.
Opinion by FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

US v. Johnson, No. 08-3393

Sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where there was no clerical error in defendant's sentence, as nothing in the record indicates that a relevant conduct finding involving the amount of crack cocaine was added to the overall sentencing calculation without the district court's knowledge or approval and thus there is no jurisdiction to change the finding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. 

Read US v. Johnson, No. 08-3393

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Argued April 2, 2009
Decided July 9, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER and FLAUM, Circuit Judges, and KAPALA, District Judge
Opinion by BAUER, Circuit Judge.

US v. Kedjouti, No. 08-3732

Petition for review of an order denying withholding of removal is denied where there is insufficient evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not that defendant will face persecution if returned to his home country. 

Read US v. Kedjouti, No. 08-3732

Appellate Information
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Argued May 15, 2009
Decided July 9, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

US v. Brown, No. 08-2273

Appeal of a conviction for drug related offenses is dismissed where the district court's acts were fully consistent with the terms of the plea agreement and the acceptance of defendant's plea agreement was unambiguous, and the court did not err by failing to specify that it was accepting Brown's plea agreement. 

Read US v. Brown, No. 08-2273

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued February 18, 2009
Decided July 8, 2009

Judges
Before ROVNER, EVANS, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by TINDER, Circuit Judge.

Cheeks v. Gaetz, No. 05-3372

Petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied where: 1) the disputed testimony about whether petitioner was living at the home where the death occurred had no effect on petitioner's first-degree murder conviction and no other actual or potential consequence has been identified; and 2) petitioner has not shown any potential benefit from further proceedings reviewing only his home invasion conviction. 

Read Cheeks v. Gaetz, No. 05-3372

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued September 11, 2006
Decided July 7, 2009

Judges
Before RIPPLE, KANNE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

Pole v. Randolph, No. 06-2768

District court's denial of plaintiff's petition for habeas relief is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's argument that his counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce the results of the gunshot residue test is forfeited as the argument was not presented in district court; and 2) plaintiff failed to show he suffered prejudice as a result of counsel's errors on his other claims, and that there was a reasonable probability that but for counsel's unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different. 

Read Pole v. Randolph, No. 06-2768

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued September 12, 2007
Decided July 7, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by ROVNER, Circuit Judge.

Kohen v. Pacific Investment Mgmt. Co. LLC, No. 08-1075

In an action brought under the Commodity Exchange Act involving allegations that defendant cornered a futures market, district court's certification of a plaintiff class is affirmed where: 1) at least one member of the certified class has a plausible claim to have suffered damages and thus the requirement of standing is satisfied; 2) defendants have not shown that the class definition clearly was overbroad; and 3) it would be premature to deny a class certification because of a potential conflict of interest that is and may not become actual. 

Read Kohen v. Pacific Investment Mgmt. Co. LLC, No. 08-1075

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued April 1, 2009
Decided July 7, 2009

Judges
Before POSNER, EVANS, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by POSNER, Circuit Judge.

US v. Kincaid, No. 08-1953

Conviction for production and possession of child pornography is affirmed where: 1) defendant intentionally waived his right to challenge the constitutionality of the indictment against him as he was aware that he could challenge the constitutionality of the indictment on Commerce Clause grounds and made a conscious decision not to press the argument in district court proceedings; and 2) the indictment was not defective and its wording did not deprive defendant of the opportunity to prepare an adequate defense.

Read US v. Kincaid, No. 08-1953

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
Argued: January 7, 2009
Decided: July 2, 2009

Judges
Before POSNER, RIPPLE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.

US v. Lauderdale, No. 08-2428

Conviction for drug crimes and firearms possession is affirmed where the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial as the prosecutor's challenged remarks were not improper, and the weight of the evidence presented at trial was more than sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.    

Read US v. Lauderdale, No. 08-2428

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Argued: June 1, 2009
Decided: July 2, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by BAUER, Circuit Judge.

US v. Hernandez-Arenado, No. 08-2520

District court order holding that defendant was in the custody of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and not the Bureau of Prisons for purposes of the Adam Walsh Act is affirmed where defendant's detention is under the authority of the ICE as part of the Department of Homeland Security, and he housed in the BOP as a service to ICE. 

Read US v. Hernandez-Arenado, No. 08-2520

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Argued: September 12, 2008
Decided: July 2, 2009

Judges
Before RIPPLE, ROVNER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by ROVNER, Circuit Judge.

Castronovo v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 08-3316

In a dispute involving insurance liability coverage, district court judgment is affirmed where defendant is not obligated to indemnify plaintiffs under the consent judgment as defendant did not have a duty to defend and provide coverage to the plaintiffs, and therefore it did not breach any duty and was not estopped from asserting the consent clause as a bar to coverage. 

Read Castronovo v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 08-3316

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.
Argued: May 15, 2009
Decided: July 6, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

Glaser v. Wound Care Consultants, Inc., No. 07-4036

In a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act, district court judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that the threshold jurisdictional bar of the Act against lawsuits based upon publicly disclosed allegations applied to the suit, as the allegations in the complaint about defendant's billing practices were in fact based on publicly disclosed information and plaintiff failed to show she was an original source of the information used to support the allegations. 

Read Glaser v. Wound Care Consultants, Inc., No. 07-4036

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
Argued: April 15, 2008
Decided: July 2, 2009

Judges
Before CUDAHY, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SYKES, Circuit Judges.

8b5hzdcpku

Fry v. Exelon Corp. Cash Balance Pension Plan, No. 08-1135

In a dispute involving pension benefits, district court judgment is affirmed where under ERISA an age is the normal retirement age because the pension plan's text makes it so, and thus the statutory language allows employers to vary by contract aspects of pension plans and specify a normal retirement age that may differ from typical retirement patterns. 

Read Fry v. Exelon Corp. Cash Balance Pension Plan, No. 08-1135

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued: April 3, 2009
Decided: July 2, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and EVANS and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge.

Hassan v. Holder, No. 08-1535

Petition for review of an order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture is denied where: 1) the agency's adverse credibility determination, based on material inconsistencies between plaintiff's asylum application and hearing testimony, is supported by substantial evidence; and 2) substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that plaintiff failed to show failed to show past political persecution, and failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution. 

Read Hassan v. Holder, No. 08-1535

Appellate Information
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Argued: February 18, 2009
Decided: July 2, 2009

Judges
Before ROVNER, EVANS, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by TINDER, Circuit Judge.

US v. McGraw, No. 08-2705

Conviction for drug possession is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress and finding that defendant voluntarily consented to the officers' search; and 2) the merits of defendant's challenge to his sentencing classification cannot be reached as defendant's plea agreement included an unambiguous waiver of his right to challenge the district court's sentencing determinations. 

Read US v. McGraw, No. 08-2705


Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.
Argued: January 9, 2009
Decided: July 2, 2009

Judges
Before MANION, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SYKES, Circuit Judge.

US v. Myers, No. 07-3658

Conviction and sentence for attempted arson is affirmed where: 1) even if the government erred and made improper statements at closing, defendant was not prejudiced by the statements, and thus he failed to show a violation of his right to a fair trial or a Confrontation Clause violation; 2) no error occurred at sentencing and remand is unnecessary as the court considered the guidelines range to be advisory, took into account defendant's apparent change in behavior and job history, and imposed a sentence below the guidelines range; and 3) the court properly considered defendant's acquitted conduct during sentencing as those actions had been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Read US v. Myers, No. 07-3658

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued March 31, 2009
Decided July 1, 2009

Judges
Before FLAUM, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by MANION, Circuit Judge.

In an action brought under the Labor Management Relations Act and ERISA, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in admitting the audit report into evidence, as the report was not inadmissible hearsay; 2) the court properly allowed the the auditor's employee to testify about the report as he was qualified to lay a foundation for the admission of the report; and 3) the court's properly denied plaintiff's request to recover their auditors' fees, as plaintiff's did not meet the burden of showing that the requested costs were necessarily incurred and reasonable. 

Read Trustees of the Chicago Plastering Institute Pension Trust v. Cork Plastering Co., No. 07-3960

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued December 1, 2008
Decided July 1, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, ROVNER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by ROVNER, Circuit Judge.

Nelson v. Miller, No. 08-2044

In a prisoner civil rights action brought under the First Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff's religious exercise was substantially burdened by the procedural requirements for obtaining a religious diet and by defendant's refusal to grant him a non-meat diet on Fridays and during Lent; 2) the court properly held there was no violation of the Establishment Clause as there were valid neutral reasons for defendant's actions; 3) the court properly held that sovereign immunity bars any suit against defendant in his official capacity as prison chaplain under Section 1983 and RLUIPA; and 4) the court erred in holding determining that the IRFRA allows Illinois prison officials to be sued in their official capacities in federal court. However, before damages are assessed the case is remanded to determine whether defendant's procedures and conduct were in furtherance of a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that interest, and whether defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. 

Read Nelson v. Miller, No. 08-2044

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Argued February 25, 2009
Decided July 1, 2009

Judges
Before FLAUM, WILLIAMS, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Flaum, Circuit Judge.