CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
LEBAMOFF ENTERPRISES INC.; JOSEPH DOUST; JACK STRIDE; JACK SCHULZ; RICHARD DONOVAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
GRETCHEN WHITMER; DANA NESSEL; PAT GAGLIARDI,
Defendants-Appellants (18-2199),

MICHIGAN BEER & WINE WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION,
Intervenor Defendant-Appellant (18-2200).
   Nos. 18-2199/2200
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:17-cv-10191—Arthur J. Tarnow, District Judge.
Argued: March 12, 2020
Decided and Filed: April 21, 2020
Before: SUTTON, McKEAGUE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. The parties agree that the Twenty-first Amendment allows Michigan to distribute alcohol within its borders solely through a three-tier system, one composed of producers, wholesalers, and retailers. And the parties agree that Michigan may impose all manner of regulations on its wholesalers (e.g., that they be in the State, adhere to minimum prices, and decline to offer volume discounts) as well as on its retailers (e.g., that they be present in the State, sell only within the State, and comply with health-and-safety rules). What separates the parties is whether Michigan may permit its retailers to offer at-home deliveries within the State while denying the same option to an Indiana retailer who does not have a Michigan retail license. Because the Twenty-first Amendment permits Michigan to treat in-state retailers (who operate within the three-tier system) differently from out-of-state retailers (who do not), we uphold the law.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RYAN K. SUMLIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 18-3819
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.
No. 5:15-cr-00319-3—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: April 21, 2020
Before: GIBBONS, KETHLEDGE, BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Ryan Sumlin appeals his conviction for distribution of drugs that caused the death of Carrie Dobbins, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), which carries enhanced penalty provisions. Sumlin argues that the district court should have excluded evidence obtained from a search of his residence because the affidavit supporting the search warrant was invalid. He also contends that Amanda Kelly (Carrie’s sister and Sumlin’s ex-girlfriend who had bought drugs from him) should not have been allowed to provide certain testimony about his past relationship with Carrie. Finally, Sumlin claims that there was insufficient evidence to show that he distributed the drugs that caused Carrie’s death.

For the reasons outlined below, we find that (1) the district court properly denied Sumlin’s suppression motion, given that the affidavit established a sufficient nexus between his drug trafficking activity and residence; (2) the court properly admitted Kelly’s testimony, as it was intrinsic proof that was relevant for providing background information and contextualizing the government’s case against Sumlin; and (3) sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Sumlin distributed the drugs that caused Carrie’s death. Therefore, we AFFIRM.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER T. FOWLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
   Nos. 19-3070/3071
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.
No. 5:08-cr-00512-1—Benita Y. Pearson, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: April 21, 2020
Before: NORRIS, MOORE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. In 2018, Christopher T. Fowler (“Fowler”) pled guilty to possession of child pornography and violations of the conditions of his supervised release from a previous conviction for the same. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3014, the district court ordered Fowler to pay a $5,000 special assessment for possession of child pornography. The district court also varied upward and sentenced Fowler to the maximum statutory penalty for violating the conditions of his supervised release. On appeal, Fowler challenges both the $5,000 special assessment and the court’s decision to vary upward to the maximum for the violation of the conditions on his supervised release. Because we find the district court committed plain error by failing to address Fowler’s ability to pay the assessment, we VACATE the district court’s imposition of the assessment and REMAND for a determination of indigency. However, we AFFIRM the district court’s sentence of Fowler on the violation of the conditions on his supervised release.