CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
GREEN GENIE, INC.; ALVIN ALOSACHI,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN; CITY OF DETROIT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS; CITY OF DETROIT BUILDINGS, SAFETY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 22-1441
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:21-cv-10790—David M. Lawson, District Judge.
Argued: March 9, 2023
Decided and Filed: March 21, 2023
Before: BATCHELDER, GRIFFIN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Following changes to Michigan’s marijuana law, Green Genie sought to operate a medical marijuana distribution facility in the City of Detroit. The City denied Green Genie’s request because its proposed facility fell within a “drug-free zone,” a term of art defined by the City’s code. Green Genie challenged the City’s determination through state and local channels. Failing on those fronts, Green Genie filed this suit, alleging that the City violated the Constitution in the course of denying the permit. The district court granted summary judgment to the City, leading to this appeal. In view of the legal flaws in basic elements of each of Green Genie’s constitutional claims, we affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DERON EDWARDS ROBINSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 21-6056
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:05-cr-00196-2—William Lynn Campbell, Jr., District Judge.
Decided and Filed: March 21, 2023
Before: McKEAGUE, WHITE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. This case raises two questions about supervised release. The first question concerns the exclusionary rule. That rule sometimes bars the government from using evidence at a criminal trial if the police obtained the evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Does the rule also bar illegally obtained evidence from a hearing at which a court decides whether to revoke a defendant’s supervised release and send the defendant back to prison? We answer “no” because the Supreme Court has held that the rule does not apply in the analogous parole setting. See Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 359 (1998).

The second question concerns the right to a jury trial. Courts have long held that defendants do not have a right to a jury at supervised-release hearings. See United States v. Johnson, 356 F. App’x 785, 790–92 (6th Cir. 2009). Yet the Supreme Court recently found that this jury-trial guarantee applied to a unique provision—18 U.S.C. § 3583(k)—that imposed a minimum 5-year prison term on a defendant who committed specified federal crimes while on supervised release. United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369, 2378–79 (2019) (plurality opinion); id. at 2386 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment). Does Haymond also render unconstitutional a separate provision—18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)—that requires a court to impose a prison term of unspecified length if a defendant has engaged in certain conduct (such as possessing a gun) while on supervised release? We again answer “no” because the narrow logic of the controlling opinion in Haymond does not cover § 3583(g). These two answers lead us to affirm the district court’s judgment.