Circuit Watcher

06-3175 Soltys v. Costello
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
KANNE, Circuit Judge. Christina Soltys and Danuta Pauch were seriously injured in a car accident caused by Yvonne Costello, who, at the time, was driving under the influence of alcohol. Soltys and Pauch sued Costello, who admitted liability; trial was limited to the amount of damages owed to Soltys and Pauch. The district court denied Soltys and Pauch’s eleventh-hour motion to amend their complaint to add a count for punitive damages. After the jury returned its verdict, the district court denied Soltys and Pauch’s motion for a new trial. The district court did not abuse its discretion on either of these issues, so we affirm…. Soltys v. Costello.

06-3386, 06-3447 Nocula v. UGS Corp.
Before ROVNER and SYKES, Circuit Judges.¹
SYKES, Circuit Judge. Mitch Nocula is the sole shareholder of two corporations: Tooling Systems International Corp. (“TSI”), an Illinois company that takes orders for the manufacture of tools and dies, and P.Z. Alucon Sp. z o.o. (“Alucon”), a Polish corporation that is one of TSI’s primary subcontractors for the manufacture of the tools and dies. Nocula and TSI claim that UGS Corporation (“UGS”), a Texas-based Delaware corporation that sells computer-aided design software, and UGS Sp. z o.o. (“UGS Poland”),² a Polish sublicensee of UGS’s software, intentionally disrupted Alucon’s business by lodging a criminal complaint against it in Poland for theft of intellectual property. In connection with the ensuing prosecution, Polish police seized Alucon’s computers. Although the prosecution ended in a verdict for Alucon, the computers disappeared and Alucon’s engineering data was lost.
.
Nocula and TSI claim UGS and UGS Poland maliciously instituted the Polish criminal prosecution and used it as leverage to force the transfer of a license to use UGS’s software from a third-party licensee, Electrode Machining Services (“Electrode”), to Alucon. These actions form the basis of various tort and contract claims asserted in this lawsuit filed. UGS and UGS Poland moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by the act-of-state doctrine, which generally prohibits federal courts from entertaining claims that would question the validity of the acts of a foreign sovereign under that sovereign’s laws. The district court granted this motion. Nocula, proceeding pro se, filed a timely notice of appeal on his own behalf. After the 30-day appeal clock expired, counsel was retained and filed a “corrected” notice of appeal for Nocula and TSI.
.
Jurisdictional defects prevent us from addressing most of the claims in this case. The first notice of appeal—signed and filed by “Mitch Nocula, Pro Se”—was ineffective to provide notice of TSI’s appeal; the second notice, naming both Nocula and TSI, was untimely. Accordingly, TSI’s appeal must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Nocula’s notice of appeal was timely, but most of the claims he asserts belong to his corporation, Alucon, which is not a party. To the extent Nocula is attempting as a shareholder to sue in tort or contract for injuries to Alucon, his claims are barred by the rule against shareholder standing.
.
One claim arguably belonging to Nocula personally pertains to the “wrongful” loss of the computers and engineering data. We say arguably because the amended complaint sometimes describes this as the property of Alucon and at other times asserts the computers and data belonged to Nocula personally. Either way, the district court properly invoked the act-of-state doctrine because the adjudication of this claim would require American courts to question the legality of the seizure and loss of this property during the course of the Polish criminal prosecution. Another claim asserted by Nocula personally is for “harassment,” which is not cognizable under Illinois law. … Nocula v. UGS Corp.

1. This appeal was initially heard by Circuit Judges Rovner, Williams, and Sykes. While the case was under advisement, Judge Ann Claire Williams withdrew from participation and took no part in the opinion. [↩]
2. “Sp. z o.o.” (Spolka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia) designates a Polish limited company. [↩]

05-4222 U.S. v. Thomas
Before POSNER, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
SYKES, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Terry Thomas of possessing and conspiring to possess heroin and crack cocaine with intent to distribute. Thomas asks us to reverse his convictions on the grounds that (1) the trial evidence established multiple conspiracies at variance with the single charged conspiracy; (2) the federal prosecution was vindictive because the grand jury returned the indictment against him while he was under state charges for the same conduct; and (3) the government’s closing remarks about the seriousness of the case and the “burden” of living in a drug-infested neighborhood deprived him of a fair trial. He also challenges his 360-month sentence on the theory that the district court mis-applied the career offender sentencing guideline and imposed an unreasonable sentence. We reject these arguments and affirm Thomas’s convictions and sentence. … U.S. v. Thomas.

05-3904 U.S. v. Seymour
Before BAUER, FLAUM, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
BAUER, Circuit Judge. Defendants-Appellants Andre Seymour, Artrez Nyroby Seymour (“Nyroby Seymour”), Kent Clark, Andre Lawrence, Stacia Smith, and Troy Lawrence (collectively, the “Defendants”) appeal their respective sentences, claiming that their Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the district court sentenced all Defendants under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) without having the jury make individualized findings regarding the quantities of drugs reasonably foreseeable to each defendant. Defendant Stacia Smith also asserts that the district court erred by not suppressing a gun found in Smith’s possession during a January 2002 traffic stop, and that the district court abused its discretion when it denied her motion for a mistrial on the gun-related charge. In addition, Smith contends that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction on the gun-related charge. Defendant Andre Lawrence also appeals his conviction on the gun-related charge, claiming the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. For the following reasons, we affirm. … U.S. v. Seymour.

05-1120 U.S. v. Corley
Before ROVNER, WILLIAMS, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
ROVNER, Circuit Judge. The defendant-appellant Odell Corley was convicted of a number of charges including bank robbery and capital murder, and was sentenced to death on October 27, 2004. He appeals his convictions and his sentence.
.
The convictions stemmed from Corley’s actions with others on August 27, 2002 in robbing a bank, and killing two persons and paralyzing a third at the bank. The robbery attempt was planned in advance and was to involve Corley and four others, Edward Johnson, Andre McGregor, Danyass Gay and Jeanna Ramsey. …
.
At trial, Johnson testified against Corley, and the prosecution also introduced the videotape from the bank, as well as the palm print left at the scene. The prosecution sought the death penalty, and therefore the voir dire included questions concerning the juror’s views regarding the death penalty, and the prospective jurors’ exposure to publicity regarding the death penalty. In addition, because the defendants in the case are African-American and the victims were white, the prospective jurors’ were also queried on their racial views. Corley now raises myriad challenges to both his trial and sentencing … The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. U.S. v. Corley.

07-2819 Maxwell v. KPMG LLP
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff is the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee of a company named marchFIRST. He brought this suit against KPMG, the accounting firm claiming that marchFIRST had been harmed as a result of the accounting firm’s breaching its duty of care in violation of Illinois tort law. He seeks more than $600 million in damages. The district judge withdrew the case from the bankruptcy court and ultimately granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favor. … Maxwell v. KPMG LLP.

Abdullahi v. Prada USA Corp.
Before POSNER, FLAUM, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff was a salesperson at a Prada store, was fired, and has sued Prada for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and also 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The suit charges, under both statutes, discrimination and retaliation. The district judge dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim.
.
The principal issue is the meaning of “race” in section 1981, which provides, so far as relates to a case of employment discrimination, that “all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” The plaintiff’s Title VII claims, with (as we’ll see) one exception, are time-barred, but not her section 1981 discrimination and retaliation claims. The judge thought them barred for a different reason—that they did not charge racial discrimination. Her original complaint did, along with discrimination on the basis of national origin (she was born in Iran) and religion (Muslim). But in her amended complaint (which like the original one was on a standard complaint form for employment discrimination supplied by the Northern District of Illinois and used mainly by unrepresented plaintiffs, such as the plaintiff in this case, and which has boxes, each for a different type of discrimination, that the plaintiff can place a check mark in), unlike her original complaint, only the “national origin” and “religion” boxes were checked. There is also a box marked “color,” which was not checked in either complaint. …the dismissal of the Title VII post-employment retaliation claim and of the section 1981 claims is reversed and the case is remanded for further consideration of all those claims. The dismissal of the remaining claims is affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Abdullahi v. Prada USA Corp.

07-1375 Dotson v. BRP US Inc.
Before BAUER, ROVNER and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Brian K. Dotson was terminated from his employment with BRP US Inc. (“BRP”) after filing a claim for compensation under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA”). See 820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. Dotson’s absence from work exceeded the amount of time allowed by the company’s absenteeism policy, which tracks the time allotted by the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. (“FMLA”). Dotson sued his employer under Illinois law, alleging that the discharge was in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of BRP after concluding that no reasonable jury could conclude that Dotson’s discharge was due to retaliation. We affirm. … Dotson v. BRP US Inc.

07-1176 U.S. v. Sanders
Before POSNER, FLAUM, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant DeAngelo Sanders was indicted on the charges of possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845, 5861(d) and 5871, and possession of a firearm as a felon in contravention of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Following a trial, a jury found Sanders guilty on both counts. The district court sentenced Sanders to 295 months’ imprisonment on Count 1 and 120 months on Count 2, to be served concurrently. Sanders now appeals his conviction and sentence, and we affirm. … U.S. v. Sanders.

07-1132, 07-1152 U.S. v. Fiasche
Before FLAUM, WOOD, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
EVANS, Circuit Judge. Two Antonios—Vitagliano and Fiasche—entered conditional guilty pleas to charges that they conspired to possess, with intent to distribute, various controlled substances, namely, methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA or ecstasy), methylenedioxy-amphetamine (MDA), and marijuana. They now appeal their convictions, arguing that their motions to suppress evidence were wrongly denied. … The motions to suppress were correctly denied and the judgments of conviction are AFFIRMED. U.S. v. Fiasche.

06-4125 Cheelios v. Heavener
Before RIPPLE, MANION and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. James Chelios filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lindsey Heavener, a City of Joliet police officer, David Gerdes, the police chief, and the City of Joliet (collectively, the “defendants”). He alleges that the defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by unlawfully arresting him and using excessive force to effectuate the arrest. The complaint also includes a battery claim based on Illinois law. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Mr. Chelios timely filed a notice of appeal.
.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings. … Cheelios v. Heavener.

07-2710 REI Transp., Inc. v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
FLAUM, Circuit Judge. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. is a freight broker (or, in its estimation, a “travel agent for freight”). REI Transport, Inc., is an Illinois trucking company that provides drayage services—in this case, the local delivery of cargo from a railroad terminal to the cargo’s final destination. The retail electronics company Circuit City hired C.H. Robinson to coordinate the shipment of several hundred DVD players from a Circuit City warehouse in California to another warehouse in southern Illinois. In so doing, C.H. Robinson contracted with REI Transport to carry the DVD players the final leg of the trip—from a train depot near St. Louis to Marion, Illinois. As it turned out, through no fault of REI Transport’s, the shipment arrived short approximately $85,000 worth of DVD players. C.H. Robinson indemnified Circuit City for the lost DVD players, and Circuit City assigned any right to recover to C.H. Robinson. Surmising that REI Transport was responsible for the loss and pursuant to its contract with REI Transport, C.H. Robinson withheld amounts from what it owed REI Transport.
.
REI Transport then filed this suit in the Southern District of Illinois, alleging conversion, unjust enrichment, and that C.H. Robinson breached the parties’ contract by withholding payment. In its defense, C.H. Robinson counterclaimed that, under the Carmack Amendment, REI Transport owed more money for the damaged cargo. The district court agreed with C.H. Robinson and dismissed REI Transport’s claims. This appeal followed and, for the reasons set out below, we affirm. … REI Transp., Inc. v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.

07-1097 Haxhiu v. Mukasey
Before FLAUM, MANION, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Shkelqim Haxhiu, a native and citizen of Albania, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention against Torture (CAT), alleging that he had been persecuted on account of his political opposition to government corruption.¹
.
The Immigration Judge denied the requested relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision. Because substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s findings that Haxhiu’s persecution was not on account of his political opinion and that state actors were not responsible for the harm alleged, we grant his petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand for further proceedings. … Haxhiu v. Mukasey.

1. His wife, Dudije Haxhiu, seeks relief derivatively through Haxhiu, although she is not a party to this appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A); Bace v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 1133, 1137 (7th Cir. 2004). [↩]

06-3251 Metzger v. Illinois State Police
Before RIPPLE, MANION, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
MANION, Circuit Judge. Linette Metzger sued the Illinois State Police (“State Police”) alleging that when it denied her promotions it violated Title VII by retaliating against her for having previously filed a sex discrimination suit against it. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State Police. Metzger appeals, and we affirm. … Metzger v. Illinois State Police.

07-1430 Atanus v. Perry
Before RIPPLE, MANION and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Susanne Atanus filed this action in the district court against her employer, Stephen A. Perry, Administrator of the General Services Administration (“GSA”). Ms. Atanus’ complaint alleges that the GSA discriminated against her on the basis of her race, color, religion, gender and national origin, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Her complaint also includes a Title VII retaliation claim and a claim of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The district court granted the GSA’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. Ms. Atanus timely filed a notice of appeal. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court. … Atanus v. Perry.

07-1874 U.S. v. Hoffman
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
FLAUM, Circuit Judge. The work of two first-time informants eventually led to Justin Hoffman’s arrest and subsequent search of his home. As the informants had indicated, Hoffman dealt drugs, and a jury ultimately found him guilty of various drug and gun-related offenses. Before his trial began, Hoffman attempted to suppress the incriminating evidence found in his home on the grounds that the affidavit supporting the search warrant contained false statements that were made with a reckless disregard for the truth. The district court denied his motion, and we affirm….U.S. v. Hoffman.

07-2163, 07-2393 U.S. v. Salgado
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge. Remberto Juarez offered to buy ten kilograms of cocaine from David Elias, who introduced Daniel Pacheco-Gonzales to Juarez as his supplier. But when Pacheco-Gonzales could not come up with the cocaine, he and Elias decided to rob Juarez instead. They told Juarez that the cocaine was in hand; a meeting was arranged; Elias and Pacheco-Gonzales hired some aides (including Laura Salgado, who was to drive the getaway car). Elias, Pacheco-Gonzales, and Salgado, plus some henchmen, arrived at the site of the transaction and tried to rob Juarez’s lieutenant of the purchase money. They learned, to their horror, that both sides of this transaction were faking. Juarez was working for the Drug Enforcement Agency; his lieutenant was an informant; the site of the transaction was teeming with concealed agents. Soon Elias, Pacheco-Gonzales, and Salgado were in custody. … U.S. v. Salgado.

07-1800 Fischer v. Avanade, Inc.
Before, POSNER, FLAUM, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Barbara Fischer was an employee at Avanade, Inc. from May 2001 until her resignation in October 2005. During the course of her employment, Fischer was passed over on multiple occasions for a promotion to Delivery Management Practice Director (“Director”) at the company. In 2005, Fischer brought a lawsuit against Avanade under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging gender discrimination based upon a failure to promote and retaliation in the form of constructive discharge. On June 12, 2006, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted on both claims. Fischer appeals this decision. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse with respect to Plaintiff’s failure to promote claim and affirm on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. … Fischer v. Avanade, Inc.

07-1101 Chicago Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights v. Craigslist, Inc.
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and WOOD and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge. Section 804(a) of the Fair Housing Act forbids discrimination on account of race, religion, sex, or family status when selling or renting housing. 42 U.S.C. §3604(a). This prohibition is accompanied by a ban on ads that state a preference with respect to any of the protected classes. It is illegal

[t]o make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

42 U.S.C. §3604(c). The Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, on behalf of its members, contends in this suit that craigslist, which provides an electronic meeting place for those who want to buy, sell, or rent housing (and many other goods and services), is violating this statute. … given §230(c)(1) [Plaintiff] cannot sue the messenger just because the message reveals a third party’s plan to engage in unlawful discrimination. AFFIRMED Chicago Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights v. Craigslist, Inc.

07-2060 U.S. v. De Horta Garcia
Before BAUER, KANNE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
BAUER, Circuit Judge. Jose De Horta Garcia, then a permanent resident alien, was deported in 1996 because he had been convicted of a drug trafficking crime. This case involves his second illegal re-entry into the country after deportation. During his first prosecution for illegal re-entry, he challenged the validity of his deportation order on the grounds that he was denied his right to seek a discretionary waiver of deportation under former INA § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1995) (repealed), arguing that the repeal of discretionary waiver should not have been applied to prevent him from applying for the waiver. The District of Alaska rejected his contention and De Horta Garcia did not appeal. He raised the argument again in this prosecution and the district court rejected it based on circuit precedent. We affirm. … U.S. v. De Horta Garcia.

07-2502 Escobar-Barraza v. Mukasey
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge. Arturo Escobar Barraza, a citizen of Mexico, applied for permission to remain in the United States as a permanent resident under a provision establishing a preference for immediate relatives of citizens. (Both his wife and his mother are citizens of the United States.) Before the agency made a final decision on this application, however, Escobar was convicted in Nebraska of possessing drug paraphernalia—specifically, a pipe for smoking marijuana. Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-441. An immigration judge concluded that this conviction makes Escobar inadmissible, see 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), and an alien who is inadmissible at the time he seeks adjustment of status not only is ineligible for permanent residence, see 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(1)(A), but also is not entitled to remain in the United States. The IJ ordered him removed to Mexico, and the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed. … The petition for review is granted, the Board’s decision is vacated, and the matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Escobar-Barraza v. Mukasey.

06-3844 Wipf v. Kowalski
Before ROVNER, WOOD, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
SYKES, Circuit Judge. While performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy to remove Nicki Wipf’s gallbladder, Dr. Lisa Kowalski accidentally cut Wipf’s common bile duct. As a result, Wipf underwent various corrective procedures with painful side effects. Wipf filed a diversity suit against Dr. Kowalski and her employer, Marshall Clinic Effingham, S.C., for medical malpractice, and a jury found Dr. Kowalski had not breached the applicable standard of care. On appeal Wipf argues the jury’s verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, or alternatively, a new trial is warranted based on various erroneous evidentiary and other rulings by the district court. Because the jury’s verdict is supported by the evidence and the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary and other rulings before and during trial, we affirm. … Wipf v. Kowalski.

07-2212, 07-2430, 07-2529 Airadigm Commc’ns, Inc. v. FCC (In Re Airadigm Commc’ns, Inc.)
Before FLAUM, KANNE, ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Debtor-appellant, Airadigm Communications, Inc. is a cellular-service provider. In 1996, it successfully bid for fifteen personal communications services (“PCS”) licenses as part of an FCC auction and opted to pay off the licenses under an installment plan set up by the FCC. For Airadigm, however, the airwaves were too turbulent, and by 1999 it had filed for chapter-11 bankruptcy. Almost immediately, the FCC cancelled Airadigm’s PCS licenses and filed a proof of claim in bankruptcy court for the remaining amounts owed under the installment plan. The ensuing reorganization proceeded under the assumption that the licenses were gone, having been validly cancelled. And although the ultimate reorganization plan set out several contingencies in the event the FCC reinstated the licenses—which it never did—it provided little else regarding the licenses’ status after the reorganization. In 2003, the Supreme Court decided NextWave Personal Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 537 U.S. 293 (2003), and held that the FCC could not cancel a debtor’s PCS licenses just because it had filed for bankruptcy. The FCC conceded a few months later that it had been wrong to terminate Airadigm’s licenses and reinstated them as though they had never been cancelled. … Airadigm Commc’ns, Inc. v. FCC (In Re Airadigm Commc’ns, Inc.).

06-4431 Agency Gao v. Mukasey
Before POSNER, WOOD, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge. This proceeding to review the denial of asylum has a tangled history unnecessary to recount. The only issue we need resolve is whether the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in dismissing, as untimely, the petitioner’s appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen the asylum proceeding. … Gao v. Mukasey.

07-2752 Agency St. Margaret Mercy v. NLRB
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and POSNER, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge. The Labor Board found that St. Margaret, which owns and operates two hospitals in Indiana (but for the sake of simplicity we’ll assume they’re one), interfered with the right of the hospital nurses to organize and discriminated against one of the nurses, who was a union activist. The interference, the Board ruled, violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, and the discrimination section 8(a)(3). 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1), (a)(3). … St. Margaret Mercy v. NLRB.

07-3031 Civil Blagojevich v. Gates
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge. In this suit, now pending for more than two years, the Governor of Illinois contends that a decision to move some planes assigned to the 183rd Fighter Wing of the Air National Guard from a base in Illinois to one in Indiana violates the rule that “no change in the branch, organization, or allotment of a unit [of the National Guard] located entirely within a State may be made without the approval of its governor.” … Blagojevich v. Gates.

06-2777 Prisoner Appeal Hill v. Wilson
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and POSNER, Circuit Judges.
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge. Asher Hill entered a liquor store in Indianapolis, shot the clerk, and stole the contents of the cash register. For this conduct he has been convicted of several offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole, because his many convictions make him a habitual offender under Indiana law. The clerk survived and was prepared to testify against Hill but suffered a heart attack just before trial. The judge postponed the trial for two months; Hill contends, in this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §2254, that by doing this the judge violated two of his constitutional rights. The state judiciary rejected these arguments, Hill v. State, 773 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. App. 2002), 777 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. App. 2002), as did a federal district judge, Hill v. McBride, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39599 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 30, 2006). … Hill v. Wilson.

06-1808 Criminal U.S. v. Kelly
Before RIPPLE, ROVNER, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
ROVNER, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted of Vernell Kelly of knowingly possessing a firearm following a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and knowingly and intentionally possessing, with the intent to distribute, crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court ordered him to serve a prison term of 235 months. Kelly appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish his possession of both the firearm and the cocaine underlying one of the two narcotics charges against him, that the evidence did not adequately establish that the cocaine attributed to him took the form of crack cocaine, and that the district court improperly characterized him as a career offender for sentencing purposes. We affirm. … U.S. v. Kelly

07-2238 Civil Banco Del Atlantico v. Stauder, Alfred {EVANS}

07-3688 Agency Hussain, Mohammad v. Mukasey, Michael {POSNER}

07-2209 Civil Great Wolf v. Black Wolf Lodge {CUDAHY}
06-4367 Civil United Rentals v. IN Constructors {POSNER}
06-4185 Criminal USA v. White, Juan {ROVNER}

07-3785 Civil Correa, Maria v. White, Albert per curiam