CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CRAIG B. SNODDY,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 19-6089
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Winchester.
No. 4:18-cr-00009-1—Travis R. McDonough, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: September 24, 2020
Before: BATCHELDER, MOORE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. On appeal from his drug-trafficking convictions, Craig Snoddy challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence resulting from an inventory search of his car. Past midnight on a dark highway, Tennessee Highway Patrol Officer Adam Malone stopped Snoddy for speeding and arrested him on outstanding warrants, including for drug crimes. As Snoddy was the sole occupant of the car, Trooper Malone called for a tow truck to have Snoddy’s car impounded. Trooper Malone was required by state policy to conduct an inventory search of Snoddy’s car prior to towing. Snoddy claims that the inventory search in reality was a pretext for an investigative search for drugs, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because the district court did not clearly err in finding no such pretext, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Snoddy’s motion to suppress.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION.

___________________________________________

ALBANY COUNTY, NEW YORK, Negotiation Class’s Class Representatives; CO-LEAD NEGOTIATION CLASS COUNSEL; CO-NEGOTIATION CLASS COUNSEL,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

CITY OF NORTH ROYALTON, OHIO; CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND, OHIO; CITY OF MAYFIELD HEIGHTS, OHIO; CITY OF LYNDHURST, OHIO; CITY OF HURON, OHIO; CITY OF WICKLIFFE, OHIO,
Plaintiffs-Appellants (19-4099),
v.
MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION; PRESCRIPTION SUPPLY, INC.; DISCOUNT DRUG MART, INC.; WALMART, INC.; WALGREEN COMPANY; WALGREEN EASTERN CO., INC.; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CVS INDIANA, LLC; CVS Rx SERVICES, INC.; RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC., dba Rite Aid of Mid-Atlantic Customer Support Center,
Defendants-Appellants (19-4097).
   Nos. 19-4097/4099
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
Nos. 1:17-md-02804; 1:18-op-45090—Dan A. Polster, District Judge.
Argued: July 28, 2020
Decided and Filed: September 24, 2020
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. The latest appeal in this multi-district litigation (“MDL”) relating to the opioid crisis centers on the district court’s order certifying a “negotiation class” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court has certified a class of all cities and counties throughout the United States for purposes of negotiating a settlement between class members and opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies. Appellants, objecting opioid distributors and retail pharmacies (“Defendants”), as well as six objecting Ohio cities, appeal the district court’s order certifying this negotiation class. Appellees, putative representatives of the negotiation class (“Plaintiffs”), request us to approve this novel form of class action. For the reasons provided below, we decline to do so, and therefore REVERSE the district court’s order.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TYSLEN J. BAKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 19-5636
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Owensboro.
No. 4:17-cr-00007-1—Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., District Judge.
Decided and Filed: September 24, 2020
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, DONALD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. After learning of an outstanding arrest warrant for Tyslen Baker, a police officer entered his residence to arrest him and spotted drugs and a firearm in a back room. Baker moved to suppress this incriminating evidence on the ground that the police had violated the Fourth Amendment in two ways. Baker first argued that the officer who executed the arrest warrant subjected him to an “unreasonable” “seizure” by entering that back room without his consent. Baker next argued that the separate officer who requested the arrest warrant from a state judge relied on an affidavit lacking “probable cause” that Baker had committed a crime.

We hold that the district court correctly denied Baker’s motion to suppress this evidence. The officer who arrested Baker acted reasonably in monitoring his movements during the arrest. See Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 7 (1982). And the affidavit supporting the warrant contained enough of a connection between Baker and a crime that the officers could reasonably rely on the state judge’s probable-cause finding. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984). Whether or not probable cause existed, therefore, the warrant should not trigger the exclusionary rule. Id. And while Leon’s exception to the exclusionary rule arose in the context of a search warrant allegedly lacking probable cause, we think the Court would extend its basic rules to arrest warrants too. Cf. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 137 (2009). We thus affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JEREMY L. CRUZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 19-4160
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:19-cr-00312-1—John R. Adams, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: September 24, 2020
Before: GUY, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. Jeremy Cruz was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to three offenses: transporting a minor with intent to engage in sexual activity; receiving child pornography; and transporting child pornography. Cruz had maintained a two-year online relationship with the victim before he picked her up in California, traveled across the country, and had sex with her on multiple occasions. Cruz appeals his sentence, arguing the district court erred in imposing a two-level offense enhancement on Count 1 for “unduly influenc[ing] a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct.” USSG § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B).

It was not an abuse of discretion for the sentencing court to impose the enhancement. But even if that were not the case, any claimed error is harmless. The application of the enhancement did not alter Cruz’s Sentencing Guidelines range or resulting sentence because Cruz was sentenced to a term of imprisonment at the top of the Guidelines range established by Counts 2 and 3—which did not include the undue-influence enhancement. Accordingly, Cruz’s sentence is AFFIRMED.