If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
March 18, 2021

Table of Contents

Bridges v. United States

Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Legal Ethics

United States v. Lundberg

Criminal Law

United States v. Wallace

Criminal Law

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

How We Resist Positive Change

SHERRY F. COLB

verdict post

Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb describes some ways in which we resist positive change; specifically, she describes her initial hesitation to becoming an ethical vegan and the rationalizations we use to justify resisting positive change. Professor Colb argues that animals are different from inanimate objects, and we must recognize that when anyone suffers, anyone regardless of species, we have an evil that rightly commands our attention and action.

Read More

US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Opinions

Bridges v. United States

Docket: 20-1623

Opinion Date: March 17, 2021

Judge: HAMILTON

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Legal Ethics

Now in his sixties, Bridges has been in and out of prison since he was a teenager. After staying out of trouble for eight years, Bridges got involved in drugs again and committed four robberies in two days in 2017. He netted scarcely $700. Charged with four counts of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951, Bridges agreed to plead guilty, stipulating that he was subject to the career offender enhancement, U.S.S.G. 4B1.1, which could apply only if his crimes of conviction were “crimes of violence” under the Guidelines. The enhancement more than doubled his sentencing range. The court imposed a below-guideline sentence of 140 months. Bridges sought postconviction relief, alleging he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his lawyer failed to argue that Hobbs Act robbery did not qualify as a “crime of violence.” At the time, there was no Seventh Circuit precedent on that issue. The district court denied relief. The Seventh Circuit reversed for an evidentiary hearing on defense counsel’s performance, joining other circuits that have concluded that Hobbs Act robbery is not a Guidelines “crime of violence.” When Bridges pleaded guilty, the building blocks for a successful legal argument were in place. Effective counsel would have considered this important question; minimal research would have uncovered a Tenth Circuit decision holding that Hobbs Act robbery was no longer a crime of violence under a 2016 amendment to the Guideline definition of a crime of violence.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

United States v. Lundberg

Docket: 19-3477

Opinion Date: March 17, 2021

Judge: KANNE

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Kennedy, a CPA working for Nemera, met Lundberg, an escort, through the website Backpage and gave her a credit card that belonged to Kennedy’s employer, which was intended for company purchases only. In less than two years, Lundberg spent more than $5.8-million at exclusive stores, paying more than $100,000 to rent a mansion in California, and purchasing a Jaguar automobile, diamonds, and Rolex watches. She paid for plastic surgery and trips to places like Jamaica and Bora Bora. When Nemera discovered the scheme, Kennedy cooperated with the government, pled guilty, and testified against Lundberg, who was convicted of five counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and sentenced to 53 months’ imprisonment and over $4 million in restitution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and to the admission of Kennedy’s testimony about Lundberg’s background as an escort, about an email that Kennedy wrote to himself in which he admitted that he was “committing fraud and theft,” and about Lundberg’s unauthorized opening of personal credit lines in Kennedy’s name. The evidence supported that Lundberg knew all the spending was illicit. The court upheld the application of the “sophisticated means” sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C).

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

United States v. Wallace

Docket: 20-1043

Opinion Date: March 17, 2021

Judge: Daniel Anthony Manion

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Responding to a 911 call, Officer Kristensen, outside behind the residence, saw someone in the backyard and shined a flashlight toward the figure, a black man wearing a black sweatshirt with writing on the arm and black pants. This man then raised his right hand straight out in front and pointed a silver handgun at Kristensen. Kristensen took cover, identified himself as a police officer, and radioed other officers that he had seen someone with a gun. The figure fled. Officers heard a fence rattle indicating the man ran east. He triggered a motion-detector light; the officers saw him. Kristensen ordered him (Wallace) to the ground. He put his hands up--they appeared empty. He wore the clothes Kristensen had described. Officers handcuffed and searched him but did not find a gun. Officers found a silver handgun on the roof gutter of a nearby house. No debris was on the loaded gun, which had a round in the chamber and was visible from the ground. Convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, Wallace was sentenced to 78 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding the officers’ testimony sufficient evidence that Wallace possessed a firearm. The court upheld the addition of two criminal history points based on Wallace’s 2015 Illinois conviction for fleeing police and the addition of eight offense levels for n his 2004 Illinois drug conviction.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043