U.S. Sixth Circuit: October 2009 Archives
U.S. Sixth Circuit - The FindLaw 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

October 2009 Archives

Carter v. Anderson, No. 08-3372

District court's order denying death-row inmate's claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is affirmed as a movant that seeks relief under Rule 60(b) must show extraordinary circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment and, in this case, the motion fails because the defendant cannot prove by clear and convincing evidence that the warden committed fraud on the court.  

Read Carter v. Anderson, No. 08-3372

Appellate Information

Argued: August 5, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 30, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Suhrheinrich

Counsel

For Appellant:  Joseph E. Wilhelm, Federal Public Defender's Office, Cleveland, Ohio

For Appellee:  Thomas E. Madden, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio

Cox v. Standard Ins. Co., No. 08-2033

In plaintiff's ERISA case, district court's judgment on the administrative record approving defendant's discontinuance of plaintiff's long-term disability benefits is affirmed as, taking the record as a whole and applying the highly deferential arbitrary and capricious standard, defendant's decision appears to have been based on a principled and deliberative reasoning process.     

Read Cox v. Standard Ins. Co., No. 08-2033

Appellate Information

Argued: October 8, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 29, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Martin

Counsel

For Appellant:  Troy W. Haney, Haney Law Office, PC, Grand Rapids, Michigan

For Appellee:  Warren Sebastian von Schleicher, Smith, von Schleicher & Associates, Chicago, Illinois

Ghazali v. Holder, No. 08-4229

BIA's denial of Lebanese petitioner's application for asylum is affirmed as an immigration judge's determination that an asylum application is time barred does not preclude the judge from also finding that the same application is frivolous.     

Read Ghazali v. Holder, No. 08-4229

Appellate Information

Argued: October 7, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 29, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Sutton

Counsel

For Appellant:  Ronald E. Kaplovitz, Kaplovitz & Associates, Sylvan Lake, Michigan

For Appellee:  Patrick James Glen, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Pettrey v. Enter. Title Agency, Inc., No. 08-4125

In plaintiffs' case against defendants alleging fraudulent scheme of charging customers for services not performed and using that money to give kickbacks to real estate agents, district court's order denying class certification is affirmed and the appeal dismissed as the case is moot because plaintiffs have settled and released all of their claims against defendants.  Present case is distinguishable from previous cases where the Supreme Court has allowed named plaintiffs to appeal denials of class certification even after the named plaintiffs' individual claims had become moot where plaintiffs retained a personal stake in the case because they would be able to shift part of the costs of litigation to the class members if they prevailed in their attempt at class certification.     

Read Pettrey v. Enter. Title Agency, Inc., No. 08-4125

Appellate Information

Argued: August 5, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 27, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Thapar

Counsel

For Appellant:  David G. Oakley, Kramer & Associates, LPA, Cleveland, Ohio

For Appellee:  Ellyn Tamulewicz Mehendale, Janik LLP, Cleveland, Ohio

US v. Washington, No. 09-5110

District court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce and modify his otherwise valid sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 3582(c)(2) is affirmed as the district court does not have authority under US v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), to reduce a sentence beyond the retroactive United States Sentencing Guidelines amendment range.     

Read US v. Washington, No. 09-5110

Appellate Information

Argued: Agust 4, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 27, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Griffin

Counsel

For Appellant:  John G. Oliva, Nashville, Tennessee

For Appellee:  Matthew J. Everett, Assistant United States Attorney, Nashville, Tennessee

Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, No. 08-4557

In plaintiff's action against his former employer, seeking indemnification for legal expenses incurred in successfully defending a prior suit brought against him under the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA), dismissal of his claim on the ground that it was preempted by federal law is vacated and remanded as Congress did not intend to displace the state-law indemnification rights, if any, of parties found not to have violated the CEA.      

Read Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, No. 08-4557

Appellate Information

Argued: October 8, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 27, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Kethledge

Counsel

For Appellant: James G. Vargo, James E. Arnold & Associates, LPA, Columbus, Ohio

For Appellee:  Jeffrey A. Schulman, Wolin Kelter & Rosen, LTD, Chicago, Illinois

US v. Hebert, No. 07-2438

Defendant's direct criminal appeal of district court's request to the Bureau of Prisons is dismissed as appellate review is not available when a sentencing judge suggests that the Bureau should evaluate or treat certain physical or emotional problems. 

Read US v. Hebert, No. 07-2438

Appellate Information

Argued: September 21, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 23, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Merritt

Counsel

For Appellant:  Paul A. Peterson, Federal Public Defenders Office, Marquette, Michigan

For Appellee:  Maarten Vermaat, Assistant United States Attorney, Marquette, Michigan

District court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) with respect to plaintiffs' claims for withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, the court's judgment is vacated and remanded for a determination whether the defendant had an obligation to contribute to the fund under applicable labor-management relations law; and 2) district court's judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract is affirmed.     

Read Cent. States, SE & SW Areas Pension Fund v. Int'l Comfort Prods., LLC, No. 08-5949

Appellate Information

Argued: March 10, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 22, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Kethledge

Counsel

For Appellant:  John Joseph Franczyk, Jr., Rosemont, Illinois

For Appellee:  Lee T. Polk, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Chicago, Illinois

In plaintiffs' lawsuit against defendants, alleging copyright infringement and various state law claims relating to the use of samples in rap recordings, district court's denial of defendants' motion requesting that attorney fees be imposed as a condition of granting plaintiffs' motions to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice the twenty cases at issue is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion either by failing to provide specific reasons for its decision, or by deciding not to impose attorney fees as a condition of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2).  

Read Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal-MCA Music Publ'g., Inc., No. 08-5254

Appellate Information

Argued: October 8, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 21, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Guy

Counsel

For Appellant:  Russell J. Frackman, Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Los Angeles, California

For Appellee:  Richard S. Busch, King & Ballow, Nashville, Tennessee

In plaintiff-investors' lawsuit against the defendant, nation's largest provider of pharmaceutical care for the elderly, district court's dismissal is affirmed for the most part where: 1) dismissal of the section 10(b), section 20(a), and Rule 19b-5 claims is affirmed as the complaint fails to allege a material misstatement or omission, fails to plead loss causation, and the complaint does not sufficiently establish that defendants actually knew that the legal compliance statements were false when made, 2) district court's denial of Alaska Electrical's motion to intervene is affirmed; and 3) district court's dismissal of the section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 is reversed and remanded as loss of causation is not an element of a section 11 claim, but an affirmative defense to it.   

Read Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & Hod Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 07-6379

Appellate Information

Argued: September 18, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 21, 2009

Judges

Opinion by District Judge Mills

Counsel

For Appellant:  Eric Alan Issacson, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, San Francisco, California

For Appellee:  Harvey Kurzweil, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, New York, New York

Hall v. Spencer County, No. 08-6455

District court's finding that plaintiffs' new claims in their amended complaint were time-barred under the applicable Kentucky statute of limitations and dismissal of federal claims is reversed as: 1) the claims asserted in the amended complaint were based on the same conduct, transaction or occurrence as the claims in the original complaint that defendants impermissibly reduced and suspended assignment of wrecker calls to plaintiffs' towing service; and 2) as such, the claims in the amended complaint relate back to the claims in the original complaint and were filed within the statute of limitations. 

Read Hall v. Spencer County, No. 08-6455

Appellate Information

Argued: October 6, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Martin

Counsel

For Appellant:  David A. Friedman, Fernandez Friedman Haynes & Kohn PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky

For Appellee:  David A. Cohen, McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky

In plaintiffs-school districts' suit seeking a declaratory judgment that they need not comply with the No Child Left Behind Act's (NCLB) requirements where doing so would result in increased costs of compliance not covered by federal funds, district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is affirmed as the circuit court split evenly 8-8 on whether to affirm or reverse the ruling below, which had found that plaintiffs must comply with the NCLB's requirements regardless of any federal-funding shortfall. 

Read Sch. Dist. of the City of Pontiac v. Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Educ., No. 05-2708

Appellate Information

Argued: December 10, 2008

Decided and Filed: October 16, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Cole

Counsel

For Appellant: Robert H. Chanin, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Washington, DC.

 For Appellee:  Alisa B. Klein, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

US v. Parks, No. 07-3944

Trial court's conviction of a defendant for accidentally killing a co-participant while speeding away from a bank robbery is affirmed but the imposition of a mandatory life sentence pursuant to the federal bank robbery statute 18 U.S.C. section 2113(e) is vacated and remanded as the district court believed that US v. Poindexter, 44 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 1995), controlled the outcome of this case and required a mandatory life sentence for even an accidental killing, but Poindexter interpreted an earlier version of the statute which said nothing about life imprisonment.   

Read US v. Parks, No. 07-3944

Appellate Information

Argued: April 29, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 16, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Merritt

Counsel

For Appellant:  Richard A. Cline, Richard A. Cline & Co.. LLC, Columbus, Ohio

For Appellee: David M. DeVillers, J. Michael Marous, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbus, Ohio

Brown v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, No. 08-2506

In plaintiffs' lawsuit against the US government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the government is affirmed as the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) did not owe a duty to the plaintiffs under Michigan law where there is insufficient evidence that plaintiff's husband presented the VA with symptoms of Leishmaniasis such that a reasonable physician should have known that he was infected with the disease, and where there is also insufficient evidence that the VA should have known that the disease was readily transmissible from the husband to his family members, and thus, the plaintiffs were not foreseeable victims of any failure by the VA to diagnose the husband with the disease.  

Brown v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, No. 08-2506

Appellate Information

Argued: July 30, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 15, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge McKeague

Counsel

For Appellant: Robert Paul Walsh, Battle Creek, Michigan

For Appellee: Steven P. Croley, Detroit, Michigan

US v. Adams, No. 08-5372

District court's conviction of a defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress a firearm found in the pocket of his jacket, considering the totality of the circumstances, and in determining that officer safety satisfied the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement; 2) district court did not clearly err in denying defendant's motion to suppress his confession as he was given his Miranda rights, he understood them, and he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived those rights; and 3) district court's determination denying defendant's proposed jury instruction is reversed and remanded as the court's failure to advise the jury that corroboration of the confession was necessary substantially impaired the defense.  

Read US v. Adams, No. 08-5372

Appellate Information

Argued: June 18, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 14, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Keith

Counsel

For Appellant:  Isaiah S. Gant, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Nashville, Tennesse.

For Appellee:  Blanche Bong Cook, Assistant United States Attorney, Nashville, Tennessee.

US v. Cain, No. 07-4535

Indictment of a defendant for failing to update his sex offender registration and for traveling interstate is reversed because Sexual Offenders Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) explicitly required the Attorney General to specify the applicability of the Act to persons convicted prior to the effective date of SORNA, and because the Attorney General did not promulgate a regulation making that determination in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, defendant was not subject to SORNA's requirements during the period indicated in the indictment.   

Read US v. Cain, No. 07-4535

Appellate Information

Argued: April 28, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Rogers

Counsel

For Appellant:  Amy B. Cleary, Federal Public Defender's Office, Cleveland, Ohio

For Appellee:  Michael A. Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, Cleveland, Ohio

US v. Lay, No. 07-4062

District court's sentence of a defendant convicted of traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct is affirmed where: 1) the court properly applied an enhancement for unduly influencing a minor after finding that defendant failed to rebut the applicable presumption that he had unduly influenced the much younger victim; 2) the district court permissibly applied an enhancement for use of a computer to entice the minor, even though none of defendant's discussions with the minor about sexual activity occurred via computer; 3) defendant did not qualify for a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because the district court found that he did not testify truthfully in all relevant respects, despite professing to accept responsibility; and 4) defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable, though he will face significant restraints on his freedom when he is on supervised release.    

Read US v. Lay, No. 07-4062

Appellate Information

Argued: January 16, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Rogers

Counsel

For Appellant:  Donna Maria Grill, Office of the Federal Public Defender,  Toledo, Ohio

For Appellee:  Michael A. Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, Cleveland, Ohio

US v. Beasley, No. 08-5164

Defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition is affirmed where: 1) the discrepancy between the caliber of ammunition charged in the indictment and the caliber of ammunition offered into evidence at trial was a variance, not a constructive amendment, and the variance was not a reversible error because it did not prejudice defendant; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a mistrial where the prejudicial effect of the objectionable question was de minimis, if at all, and the court gave a proper curative instruction to the jury.     

Read US v. Beasley, No. 08-5164

Appellate Information

Argued: August 5, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 8, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Griffin

Counsel

For Appellant:  Needum L. Germany III, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Memphis, Tennessee

For Appellee:  E. Greg Gilluly, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Memphis, Tennessee

US v. Frechette, No. 08-2191

Judgment of the district court, granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence on the ground that the evidence of one-month subscription to child pornography was stale, is reversed and remanded where: 1) under the factors set forth in US v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2006), the information presented to the magistrate judge was not stale; 2) the magistrate judge had a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed from the affidavit that the defendant, a registered sex offender, paid $79.95 to access a commercial child pornography web site using an email address and PayPal account connected to his residence; and 3) the magistrate judge could conclude that there was a fair probability that the evidence still existed sixteen months later. 

Read US v. Frechette, No. 08-2191

Appellate Information

Argued: August 6, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 8, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Thapar

Counsel

For Appellant:  Nils R. Kessler, Assistant United States Attorney, Grand Rapids, Michigan

For Appellee:  Helen C. Nieuwenhuis, Nieuwenhuis Law Office, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Morrison v. Bd. of Tr. of Green Township, No. 08-3051

In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against an officer who arrested her for domestic disturbance, district court's partial denial of defendant-officer's motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding each element of the handcuffing test, including the injury requirement; and 2) a reasonable juror could find that no threat to the officer existed, and in the absence of a threat to officer safety, defendant cannot argue that he acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment when he pushed plaintiff's face into the ground while she was incapacitated because use of force after a suspect has been incapacitated or neutralized is excessive as a matter of law. 

Read Morrison v. Bd. of Tr. of Green Township, No. 08-3051

Appellate Information

Argued: June 19, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 8, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Keith

Counsel

For Appellant:  Andrew E. Rudloff, Subashi, Wildermuth & Dinkler, Dayton, Ohio

For Appellee:  Norman J. Frankowski II, Flagel & Papakirk, Cincinnati, Ohio

US v. Maye, No. 07-4311

Defendant's conviction and sentence for distributing more than five grams of crack and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime is vacated and remanded for new plea acceptance and sentencing hearings where: 1) the district court committed plain error in carrying out its Rule 11 duties, which clearly affected defendant's substantial rights and as such, defendant is entitled to another opportunity to plead to the 18 U.S.C. section 924(c) charge; and 2) defendant's sentence for distribution of crack cocaine is vacated and remanded as there is reason to believe the district court judge did not recognize his authority to reject and vary from the crack cocaine Guidelines based solely on a policy disagreement with those Guidelines.     

Read US v. Maye, No. 07-4311

Appellate Information

Argued: March 11, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 5, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Daughtrey

Counsel

For Appellant:  Michael M. Losavio, Louisville, Kentucky

For Appellee:  Salvador A. Dominguez, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbus, Ohio

US v. Moore, No. 08-1699

District court's denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction is reversed and remanded as the facts set forth in a PSR do not mandate a finding that defendant possessed or distributed at least 4.5 kg of crack, and as such, the district court committed legal error which was not harmless, because the district court could have granted defendant a sentence reduction by finding that the government never proved that he was responsible for a quantity of crack greater than 4.5 kg. 

Read US v. Moore, No. 08-1699

Appellate Information

Argued: August 6, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 5, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Clay

Counsel

For Appellant:  Paul L. Nelson, Federal Public Defender's Office, Grand Rapids, Michigan

For Appellee: Nils R. Kessler, Assistant United States Attorney, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Reynolds v. Strickland, No. 08-4144

An Ohio inmate's motion for a stay of his execution is granted and remanded for fact-finding and evidentiary hearings on the merits in light of Ohio's revision of its execution protocol in May 2009 where the state experienced serious and troubling difficulties in executing at least three inmates, giving rise to at least two questions: 1) whether Ohio is fully and competently adhering to the Ohio lethal injection protocol given (a) their failure to have a contingency plan in place should peripheral vein access be impossible, (b) issues related to the competence of the lethal injection team, and (c) other potential deficiencies; and 2) whether these instances present sufficient new, additional factors to revive petitioner's Eight Amendment claims otherwise extinguished by Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2007). 

Read Reynolds v. Strickland, No. 08-4144

Appellate Information

Decided and Filed: October 5, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Martin

Rabbers v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 08-2317

District court's denial of claimant's application for disability insurance benefits is affirmed where, although the ALJ clearly did not make the required findings regarding the severity of claimant's mental impairment, the error was harmless because it did not deprive the claimant of a substantial right nor did it prejudice him on the merits as the administrative record indicated that his bipolar disorder was not severe enough to render him disabled. 

Read Rabbers v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 08-2317

Appellate Information

Argued: April 22, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 5, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge McKeague

Counsel

For Appellant:  Frederick W. Bleakley, Bleakley Law Offices, PC., Muskegon, Michigan

For Appellee:  Charles R. Goldstein, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Chicago, Illinois

Williams v. Redflex Traffic Sys., Inc., No. 08-5545

In plaintiff's lawsuit against the city of Knoxville alleging that the city's procedures for citing and levying fines for red-light runners captured on cameras installed at intersections violates the state and federal constitution, district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims is affirmed as the city's agreement to give her a hearing renders her challenges to the hearing's procedures unripe. 

Read Williams v. Redflex Traffic Sys., Inc., No. 08-5545

Appellate Information

Argued: June 10, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 2, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Martin

Counsel

For Appellant:  Gerald L. Gulley, Jr., Gulley Oldham, PLLC, Knoxville, Tennessee

For Appellee:  Michael S. Kelley, Kennerly, Montgomery & Finley, PC Knoxville, Tennessee, Ronald Eugene Mills, City of Knoxville Law Department, Knoxville, Tennessee, Charles W. Swanson, Sheppeard, Swanson & Mynatt, PLC, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Harris v. City of Circleville, No. 08-3252

In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 lawsuit alleging various constitutional violations of his rights while being booked at the city jail, district court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) facts are sufficient to establish a violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights with respect to his excessive force claims; 2) plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the officers acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; 3) plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that defendants used excessive force and delayed medical treatment because of plaintiff's race in violation of his equal protection rights; and 4) a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant acted with a malicious purpose or in a wanton or reckless manner with respect to plaintiff's assault and battery claim. 

Read Harris v. City of Circleville, No. 08-3252

Appellate Information

Argued: March 13, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 2, 2009

Judges

Opinion by District Judge Cox

Counsel

For Appellant:  John T. McLandrich, Mazanec, Raskin, Ryder & Keller Co., LPA, Cleveland, Ohio

For Appellee:  Charles H. Cooper, Jr., Cooper & Elliott LLC, Columbus, Ohio

Tam Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., No. 07-4464

In plaintiff-travel agencies' lawsuit under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act alleging a conspiracy to eliminate the practice of paying base commissions by various airlines, district court's dismissal of the amended complaint is affirmed, as the plaintiffs' claims against United Airlines were discharged in bankruptcy and the claims against the remaining defendants failed to allege sufficient facts to plausibly suggest a prior illegal agreement. 

Read Tam Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., No. 07-4464

Appellate Information

Argued: October 24, 2008

Decided and Filed: October 2, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Griffin

Counsel

For Appellant:  Joseph M. Alioto, Thomas Paul Pier, Alioto Lawfirm, San Francisco, California

For Appellee:  Peter K. Huston, Latham & Watkins, San Francisco, California, James A. Reeder, Jr., Vinson & Elkins LLP, Houston, Texas, Lee H. Simowitz, Baker & Hostetler, Wahington, D.C. 

US v. Quinney, No. 07-4055

In a conviction for manufacturing and passing counterfeit currency, district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress key evidence used against him is reversed and remanded where: 1) the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply to warrantless searches where a warrant could have been obtained based on probable cause; and 2) the case is remanded to evaluate the statements made by defendant to the agents, based on the mistaken belief that the printer was properly admissible evidence, to evaluate whether they should also be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.   

Read US v. Quinney, No. 07-4055

Appellate Information

Argued: July 31, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 1, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Gilman

Counsel

For Appellant:  Jeffrey Paul Nunnari, Toledo, Ohio

For Appellee:  David O. Bauer, Assistant United States Attorney, Toledo, Ohio