CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KATHARINE E. MATTHEWS (20-6156); ROBERT EARL WALLACE (20-6181),
Defendants-Appellants.
   Nos. 20-6156/6181
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:17-cr-00118—Karen K. Caldwell, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: April 11, 2022
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, STRANCH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

When Robert Carlson stopped selling computer systems and started running drugs, he persuaded some of his friends to help. Between March 2014 and April 2017, together they trafficked about 1,680 kilograms of cocaine, 2,050 pounds of marijuana, and 40 pounds of methamphetamine—and between $500 million and $1 billion of cash in drug proceeds—for the Sinaloa Mexican drug cartel. The gig ended when Carlson got caught and turned in his coconspirators, including both appellants here, Katharine E. Matthews and Robert Earl Wallace.

Matthews was convicted on three conspiracy counts (two for drug distribution, one for money laundering) following a lengthy jury trial. She raises a variety of arguments now: whether her convictions were based on sufficient evidence; whether the district court erred in providing a deliberate-ignorance jury instruction; whether her confrontation rights were violated after the court allowed Carlson to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination as to certain questions on cross-examination; and whether she was prejudiced by a variance between the indictment and proof at trial on Count 1 (conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine). Wallace pleaded guilty to Count 1 and received a below-Guidelines sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment, which he argues is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Because their arguments lack merit, we affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
BLANCHE BARBER, individually, and a class of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGFIELD, MICHIGAN; CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGFIELD, MICHIGAN PARKS AND RECREATION; OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN; OAKLAND COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 20-2297
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:19-cv-13519—Nancy G. Edmunds, District Judge.
Argued: December 9, 2021
Decided and Filed: April 11, 2022
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Blanche Barber seeks a preliminary injunction against Defendants Charter Township of Springfield (the “Township”), Oakland County (the “County”), and both the Township and the County’s Parks and Recreation departments (collectively, “Defendants”), to prevent Defendants from removing a dam near Barber’s property. Barber alleges that Defendants’ plan to remove the dam amounts to an unconstitutional taking and a trespass. Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court granted. Barber now appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s order and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SYLVIA HOFSTETTER (20-6245); HOLLI WOMACK (20-6426); CYNTHIA CLEMONS (20-6427); COURTNEY NEWMAN (20-6428),
Defendants-Appellants.
   Nos. 20-6245/6426/6427/6428
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 3:15-cr-00027—Thomas A. Varlan, District Judge.
Argued: January 18, 2022
Decided and Filed: April 11, 2022
Before: SILER, COLE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COLE, Circuit Judge. Between 2009 and 2015, Sylvia Hofstetter managed three “painmanagement clinics” in Florida and Tennessee on behalf of three clinic partners. Hofstetter also co-owned and managed an additional clinic in Tennessee from 2012 to 2015 without those partners. Cynthia Clemons, Courtney Newman, and Holli Womack were employed as nurse practitioners at these clinics in 2013 and 2014. The clinics displayed numerous indicators of illegal opioid prescription practices, so the government investigated all four women and eventually indicted them on multiple charges. A four-month trial ensued, and the jury convicted each defendant of maintaining at least one drug-involved premises. Hofstetter was also found guilty of conspiring to distribute controlled substances, distributing controlled substances, and money laundering.

On appeal, the defendants challenge their maintaining-a-drug-involved-premises conviction, arguing that: (1) the underlying statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to them; (2) the district court erred when instructing the jury; (3) insufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict; and (4) the jury’s verdict was inconsistent. Hofstetter separately raises additional issues specific to her convictions, including that: (1) the district court abused its discretion when it denied three evidentiary challenges; (2) the district court erred when instructing the jury about her distribution-of-a-controlled-substance charge; and (3) she did not receive a fundamentally fair trial due to spoliation, Brady obligations, and the government’s improper remarks during closing arguments. Finding no error, we affirm on all issues.