CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAMAL COOPER,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 17-5475
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:14-cr-00090-1—Aleta Arthur Trauger, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: June 22, 2018
Before: BOGGS, BATCHELDER, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. The defendant appeals the denial of his motions to suppress evidence obtained from government wiretaps, claiming that the wiretaps were not properly authorized. He claims that the affidavit for the wiretap application did not demonstrate the necessity of the wiretap and that it materially misrepresented some facts and omitted others, necessitating a Franks hearing. He also claims that the government improperly used one application for two wiretap orders, did not seal the wiretap recordings as “immediately” as the statute requires or explain its failure to do so, and did not prove that certain undercover informants consented voluntarily to the recordings of their communications on the wiretaps. We affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FRANK MICHAEL SUSANY, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 17-4093
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.
No. 4:16-cr-00312-1—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: June 22, 2018
Before: MOORE, KETHLEDGE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Frank Susany, Jr. pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to knowingly receive and transport explosive materials, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 842(a)(3)(A), and 844(a). The district court granted a three-level downward variance from Susany’s advisory Guidelines range and imposed a sentence of 21 months of imprisonment, followed by a two year period of supervised release. Susany appeals that sentence, arguing that the district court imposed a sentence that was procedurally unreasonable because it failed to reduce Susany’s base offense level by three points, pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) § 2X1.1(b)(2). Although the district court erred by not reducing Susany’s offense level under § 2X1.1(b)(2), we find the error to be harmless, and therefore AFFIRM.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CLIFTON A. SATTERWHITE,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 17-3424
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 2:16-cr-00205-1—Michael H. Watson, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: June 22, 2018
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; CLAY and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Clifton Satterwhite (“Satterwhite”) appeals from the judgment entered by the district court sentencing him to 240 months of imprisonment. Satterwhite was convicted of one count of conspiracy to violate the Hobbs Act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), two counts of inference with commerce by threats or violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and two counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
FILIPPO LEONE; ANNA LEONE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BMI REFRACTORY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 17-1632
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:15-cv-11542—Sean F. Cox, District Judge.
Argued: April 24, 2018
Decided and Filed: June 22, 2018
Before: GILMAN, COOK, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COOK, Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns the duty of care a contractor owes to a third party under Michigan tort law. When a piece of scrap metal seriously injured Filippo Leone while he was on the job, he sued the contractor that his employer had hired to clear the debris. Sitting in diversity, the district court granted summary judgment to the contractor, deciding that the contractor owed no duty of care to Leone because it created no new hazard. Leone and his wife timely appeal, arguing that the court interpreted Michigan law too narrowly. We agree, and REVERSE.