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. |
|