CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MELISA INGRAM; ROBERT REEVES; STEPHANIE WILSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 22-1262
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:20-cv-10288—George Caram Steeh III, District Judge.
Argued: May 4, 2023
Decided and Filed: August 31, 2023
Before: GIBBONS, BUSH, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs allege the government of Wayne County, Michigan has a policy or practice of seizing and holding vehicles while taking months to decide whether to initiate forfeiture proceedings. Plaintiffs claim they were not provided an opportunity to be heard about the detention of their vehicles and that this failure violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that plaintiffs are entitled to the requested hearing. We agree and hold that Wayne County violated that Constitution when it seized plaintiffs’ personal vehicles—which were vital to their transportation and livelihoods— with no timely process to contest the seizure. We further hold that Wayne County was required to provide an interim hearing within two weeks to test the probable validity of the deprivation. Accordingly, we AFFIRM and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ERIC LAVELL MINTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 22-5600
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Ashland.
No. 0:17-cr-00010-5—David L. Bunning, District Judge.
Argued: August 2, 2023
Decided and Filed: August 31, 2023
Before: STRANCH, BUSH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Eric Minter pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin. He appeals the district court’s enhancements of his sentence for acting as a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy and for constructive possession of a firearm. For reasons discussed below, we hold that both enhancements were proper and AFFIRM the district court’s sentence.