Weekly Case Digests — Feb. 9-13, 2015

Listen to this article

CIVIL

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Civil
Civil Procedure – Mootness

The court need not vacate the lower court rulings when an appeal becomes moot.

“The appellees note that, when an appeal becomes moot, we ordinarily vacate the underlying rulings in the case. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950). This rule is meant ‘to ensure that a decision carries no precedential force after mootness prevents further review.’ Van Straaten v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., 678 F.3d 486, 491 (7th Cir. 2012); see In re Smith, 964 F.2d 636, 637 (7th Cir. 1992). Here, however, applying this rule would lead to the odd result that, by rejecting the Rinaldis’ argument against mootness, we would give them exactly the relief that they seek.”

“There is a solution to this strange result. We have long recognized an exception to the rule in Munsingwear for situations where a losing party causes an appeal to become moot in order to avoid the preclusive effect of an unfavorable ruling. See Gould v. Bowyer, 11 F.3d 82, 84 (7th Cir. 1993); In re Smith, 964 F.2d at 637; Harris v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Re-serve Sys., 938 F.2d 720, 724 (7th Cir. 1991); CFTC, 701 F.2d at 657; cf. Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 82–83 (1987) (refusing to vacate judgment when losing party’s actions caused moot-ness of appeal). This appeal is a good candidate for that exception. As the district court explained, by the time the Rinaldis reached that court, they had already presented their arguments ‘before two separate courts in three separate proceedings.’ Then, once the district court rejected the Rinaldis’ arguments and refused to reconsider, the Rinaldis indicated in dismissing their bankruptcy case that they wanted to proceed to challenge their mortgage again in state court. We refuse to indulge this type of gamesmanship by depriving the sound decisions of the bankruptcy court and district court of preclusive effect.” Affirmed.

13-3865 & 14-1887 In re Rinaldi

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stadtmueller, J., Tinder, J.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Civil Procedure – attorney fees

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:  PEDRO COLON, Judge.  Reversed; cause dismissed.

DISTRICT I; Milwaukee; PEDRO COLON; CURLEY, P.J.

2014AP001827 Jon Ossoninik v. Aurora Foundation, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Civil Procedure – Summary judgment

Where the court granted summary judgment in favor of a non-moving party, without opportunity to respond, the grant of summary judgment must be vacated.

“The price a litigant pays for filing a flawed or unconvincing motion for summary judgment ordinarily is denial of the motion, not loss of the case. But the district court in this case appears to have treated the lack of sufficient evidentiary support for the motion as a reason to enter summary judgment against the movant. See Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. Nat’l Retirement Fund, 9 F. Supp. 3d 863, 873-74 (N.D. Ill. 2014). The court did so in the absence of a cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue that it found to be dispositive, and without first giving the unsuccessful movant notice that it was entertaining the possibility of entering summary judgment against it or the opportunity to respond. Because we are not convinced that the movant had no plausible arguments to make in opposition to an adverse grant of summary judgment, we vacate the judgment and return the case to the district court for further proceedings.”

Vacated and Remanded.

14-2034 Hotel 71 Mezz Lender, LLC, v. The National Retirement Fund

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Castillo, J., Rovner, J.

WI Court of Appeals
Civil Commitment – involuntary medication

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Winnebago County:  JOHN A. JORGENSEN, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT II; Winnebago; JOHN A. JORGENSEN, REILLY, J.

2014AP001351 Winnebago County v. Martin W.

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Civil
Civil Procedure – Sanctions

Where an attorney has engaged in a pattern of antagonistic behavior, a $2,500 sanction is ordered, but suspended pending the filing of additional frivolous submissions.

“Furthermore, a review of Nora’s other recent litigation makes clear that she has a pattern of engaging in this type of antagonistic behavior. The chief bankruptcy judge of the Western District of Wisconsin criticized Nora this past summer for repeatedly disregarding the judge’s instructions about the court’s jurisdictional and constitutional limits. In re Bechard, Bankr. No. 14-11862-13, 2014 WL 3671419, at *6 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. July 21, 2014). Nora then challenged that decision through a petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the judge had issued the decision for the sole purpose of defaming her. Nora v. Furay, No. 14-cv-527-jdp, 2014 WL 4209608 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 25, 2014). The district court found that the judge’s ‘stern, but restrained, criticism’ of Nora had been ‘well within the bounds of propriety and civility,’ though ‘Nora’s petition [was] not.’ Id. at *3 n.7. Additionally, Nora was recently sanctioned $1,000 by another district judge in this circuit for ignoring the judge’s ‘extremely clear warning’ against filing frivolous submissions. Rinaldi, Nos. 13-CV-336-JPS, 13-CV-643-JPS, ECF Doc. 48, at 3 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 9, 2014). Earlier in that case, the judge observed that, as in this case, Nora had ‘at every turn filed briefs that ha[d] done little to clarify the matters under consideration while further confusing matters,’ noting that Nora’s filings lacked coherent focus, cited controlling legal authority sparingly if at all, rehashed rejected arguments, and contained ‘irrelevant and argumentative language that has no place in a legal brief.’ Rinaldi, Nos. 13-CV-336-JPS, 13-CV-643-JPS, ECF Doc. 37, at 2 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 13, 2013). We affirmed that sanction on appeal. Rinaldi v. HSBC USA, N.A., Nos. 13-3865, 14-1887 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2015). There is also a pending disciplinary case against Nora in Wisconsin. See Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Nora, No. 2013AP000653-D (Wis. filed Mar. 20, 2013).”

So ordered.

13-2676 In re Nora

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Tinder, J.

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Civil Procedure – Sanctions

Negligence on the part of an attorney admitted pro hac vice is insufficient to warrant sanctions for contempt.

“Both the judge and the Bank realized that Salem’s Notice was most likely a poorly drafted or hasty lis pendens. That is why the judge asserted that Salem had ‘abused … his pro hac vice privileges’ by filing the Notice as a non-member of the Wisconsin Bar and without proper authentication. Once again, however, this record does not support a finding of the necessary bad faith to support sanctions. It is not even clear to us that the court’s understanding of Wisconsin law was correct. Salem was candid with the Register of Deeds of Sauk County, and the Register was the elected official responsible for these filings. Neither the court nor the Bank has cited any authority, nor can we find any, supporting the proposition that the Register lacked the discretion to accept Salem’s Notice, along with the identifying information Salem furnished. (Salem represents that he also volunteered to find a local lawyer, if that was necessary, but he was told that he did not need to do so.) In addressing Salem’s motion for reconsideration, the court stated that Salem had ‘disingenuously’ attempted to blame his problems on the Sauk County Register, but it did not explain why Salem’s account was disingenuous. No one has ever accused Salem of lying about what took place. It is possible that the Register did not understand his own authority, but it is hard to see how that translates into misconduct by Salem. Nothing indicates that Salem’s reliance on the Register’s advice was in bad faith.”

Vacated.

14-1907 Trade Well Int’l. v. United Central Bank

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Conley, J., Wood, J.

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Civil Procedure – Summary judgment

Where the court granted summary judgment in favor of a non-moving party, without opportunity to respond, the grant of summary judgment must be vacated.

“The price a litigant pays for filing a flawed or unconvincing motion for summary judgment ordinarily is denial of the motion, not loss of the case. But the district court in this case appears to have treated the lack of sufficient evidentiary support for the motion as a reason to enter summary judgment against the movant. See Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. Nat’l Retirement Fund, 9 F. Supp. 3d 863, 873-74 (N.D. Ill. 2014). The court did so in the absence of a cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue that it found to be dispositive, and without first giving the unsuccessful movant notice that it was entertaining the possibility of entering summary judgment against it or the opportunity to respond. Because we are not convinced that the movant had no plausible arguments to make in opposition to an adverse grant of summary judgment, we vacate the judgment and return the case to the district court for further proceedings.”

Vacated and Remanded.

14-2034 Hotel 71 Mezz Lender, LLC, v. The National Retirement Fund

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Castillo, J., Rovner, J.

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Constitutional Law – Freedom of the press – DPPA

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act does not violate by the freedom of the press by prohibiting newspapers from publishing police officers’ personal information, such as birth date, height, weight, hair color, and eye color, obtained from motor vehicle records.

“[W]e conclude that the DPPA’s prohibition on disclosing the Officers’ personal information does not violate Sun-Times’s First Amendment rights. As this is an as-applied challenge, our holding is limited to the facts and circumstances of this case. We do not opine as to whether, given a scenario involving lesser privacy concerns or information of greater public significance, the delicate balance might tip in favor of disclosure. We hold only that, where members of the press unlawfully obtain sensitive information that, in context, is of marginal public value, the First Amendment does not guarantee them the right to publish that information. The district court therefore did not err in denying Sun-Times’s motion to dismiss the Officers’ claim that Sun-Times violated their rights under the DPPA.”

Affirmed and Remanded.

14-2295 Dahlstrom v. Sun-Times Media, LLC

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Leinenweber, J., Flaum, J., J.

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Constitutional Law – Freedom of the press – DPPA

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act does not violate by the freedom of the press by prohibiting newspapers from publishing police officers’ personal information, such as birth date, height, weight, hair color, and eye color, obtained from motor vehicle records.

“[W]e conclude that the DPPA’s prohibition on disclosing the Officers’ personal information does not violate Sun-Times’s First Amendment rights. As this is an as-applied challenge, our holding is limited to the facts and circumstances of this case. We do not opine as to whether, given a scenario involving lesser privacy concerns or information of greater public significance, the delicate balance might tip in favor of disclosure. We hold only that, where members of the press unlawfully obtain sensitive information that, in context, is of marginal public value, the First Amendment does not guarantee them the right to publish that information. The district court therefore did not err in denying Sun-Times’s motion to dismiss the Officers’ claim that Sun-Times violated their rights under the DPPA.”

Affirmed and Remanded.

14-2295 Dahlstrom v. Sun-Times Media, LLC

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Leinenweber, J., Flaum, J., J.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Consumer Protection – HIPA

APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Waukesha County:  PATRICK C. HAUGHNEY, Judge.  Affirmed in part; reversed in part and cause remanded with directions; cross-appeal dismissed.

DISTRICT II; Waukesha; PATRICK C. HAUGHNEY, Blanchard, P.J., Lundsten, Kloppenburg, JJ.

2014AP000564 Masterclean Inc. v. David L. Butler

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Civil
Employment – Retaliation

Where an employee was terminated the day after his supervisor learned he had filed a complaint with the EEOC, summary judgment was improperly granted to the employer on the employee’s retaliation claim.

“Ledbetter claims that when he was summoned to meet with Anderson on the 20th, Anderson, who of course had learned the previous day that Ledbetter had filed a second charge with the EEOC, before firing him asked him whether he had indeed filed a second charge and he acknowledged that he had. The implication is that if Ledbetter had said ‘no,’ Anderson would have held off firing him until he could verify the truth of the denial. If this is correct, then the firing of Ledbetter was indeed retaliatory.

Reversed and Remanded.

14-2822 Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Herndon, J., Posner, J.

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Civil
Employment – FMLA – retaliation

Where a professor refused to teach courses and was divisive, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the university on his claim that the failure to appoint him department chair was in retaliation for filing an FMLA claim.

“[R]ecord evidence suggests that Carter twice refused to teach one of his classes for an entire semester. Carter also conceded that he had been previously removed by the university president as chair of the department. In doing so, the president cited Carter’s ‘overall ineffective leadership evidenced by extreme divisiveness within the department and faculty perception of inequitable standards applied to department members.’ Faced with these facts, and the lack of information presented by Carter, a reasonable jury simply could not have concluded that Hunt was no more qualified than Carter.”

Affirmed.

13-3367 Carter v. Chicago State University

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Pallmeyer, J., Kanne, J.

Wisconsin Supreme Court
Employment – Public employment – vested rights

Milwaukee County General Ordinance (MCGO), § 17.14(7)(ee)(1) (2011), that prospectively eliminated Medicare Part B premium reimbursement upon retirement for employees who did not retire before retirement dates established by Milwaukee County, did not abrogate a vested contract right.

“Plaintiffs had an opportunity to receive Medicare Part B reimbursement upon retirement, but they chose not to avail themselves of that opportunity.  In this regard, we concur with the conclusion of the court of appeals that plaintiffs were required to take three steps in order to secure the opportunity of MCGO § 17.14(7)(dd):  (1) reach retirement age; (2) provide 15 or more years of credited county service; and (3) retire before the dates established by Milwaukee County.  Simply stated, plaintiffs were eligible for the benefit they seek; however, they chose not to satisfy the necessary conditions to cause the opportunity Milwaukee County provided to ripen into a vested contract right during the period of time the opportunity was available.”

Affirmed.

2012AP2490 Schwagel v. Milwaukee County

Roggensack, J.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Insurance – homeowners policies – business exclusions

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County:  JOHN C. ALBERT, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT IV; Dane; JOHN C. ALBERT, Blanchard, P.J., Higginbotham, Sherman, JJ.

2013AP000012 Mark A. Melby v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Insurance – subrogation

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:  CHRISTOPHER R. FOLEY, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT I; Milwaukee; CHRISTOPHER R. FOLEY, Curley, P.J., Kessler, J., Thomas Cane

2014AP000732 Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. Joseph Kujawa

WI Court of Appeals
Juveniles – delinquency – ineffective assistance

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Walworth County:  JOHN R. RACE and KRISTINE E. DRETTWAN, Judges.  Reversed and cause remanded with directions.

DISTRICT II; Walworth; JOHN R. RACE, KRISTINE E. DRETTWAN, REILLY, J.

2014AP001045 State v. Charles C. S. Jr.

WI Court of Appeals
Juveniles – delinquency – waiver

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Kenosha County:  JASON A. ROSSELL, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT II; Kenosha; JASON A. ROSSELL, NEUBAUER, P.J.

2014AP002504 State v. Juwon B.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Juveniles – TPR – new evidence

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:  JOHN J. DIMOTTO and REBECCA BRADLEY, Judges. Affirmed.

DISTRICT I; Milwaukee; JOHN J. DIMOTTO, REBECCA BRADLEY, CURLEY, P.J.

2014AP001714 State v. Tamara B.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Natural Resources – wetlands

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for St. Croix County:  EDWARD F. VLACK III, Judge.  Reversed and cause remanded with directions.

DISTRICT III; St. Croix; EDWARD F. VLACK III, Hoover, P.J., Stark, Hruz, JJ.

2014AP000551 C. M. Bye v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Professional Responsibility – Revocation

Where attorney Erika Anita Cannaday committed 76 acts of misconduct in 16 client matters, revocation is appropriate.

“Having considered this matter, we approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and legal conclusions of professional misconduct.  We agree that revocation of Attorney Cannaday’s license to practice law in this state is appropriate discipline.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fisher, 2010 WI 45, 324 Wis. 2d 745, 785 N.W.2d 321 (revocation for 55 counts of misconduct after attorney abandoned law practice); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kelly, 2012 WI 55, 341 Wis. 2d 104, 814 N.W.2d 844 (revocation for 51 counts of misconduct for attorney with no prior disciplinary history); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Abbott, 2005 WI 172, 286 Wis. 2d 616, 707 N.W.2d 851 (consensual revocation for 20 allegations of misconduct).”

2014AP2152-D OLR v. Cannaday

Per Curiam.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Property – landlord-tenant

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Jefferson County:  DAVID J. WAMBACH, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT IV; Jefferson; DAVID J. WAMBACH, KLOPPENBURG, J.

2014AP001519 Sharon Logan v. David S. Schultz

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Public Health – Disability benefits

The ALJ is not required to explicitly find that a disability claimant was missing objective medical evidence before concluding she was not disabled.

“The regulation, however, does not require such an explicit finding, and it was not necessary to ‘build an “accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.”’ McKinzey, 641 F.3d at 889. The regulation provides that an ALJ will not consider the individual’s own allegations if the medical evidence demonstrates a lack of severity. It is a straight prohibition against substituting an individual’s symptoms for objective medical evidence. Nowhere is there a requirement that the ALJ make a specific finding of missing or deficient medical evidence prior to concluding that he need not consider an individual’s allegations of pain or other symptoms. As we have said, an ALJ ‘need not provide a complete written evaluation of every piece of testimony and evidence.’ Shideler, 688 F.3d at 310. In sum, the ALJ did not err in making his Step 3 determination.”

Reversed.

13-3622 Curvin v. Colvin

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stadtmueller, J., Manion, J.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Torts – asbestos

APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:  KAREN E. CHRISTENSON, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT I; Milwaukee; KAREN E. CHRISTENSON, Curley, P.J., Brennan, J., Thomas Cane

2014AP000335 Todd A. Alexander v. Auer Steel & Heating Co.

CRIMINAL

WI Court of Appeals
Criminal Procedure – new trials – newly discovered evidence

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Winnebago County:  THOMAS J. GRITTON, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT II; Winnebago; THOMAS J. GRITTON, Neubauer, P.J., Reilly, Gundrum, JJ.

2013AP002538 State v. Richard M. Arnold

WI Court of Appeals
Criminal Procedure – ineffective assistance – severance

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Fond du Lac County:  RICHARD J. NUSS, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT II; Fond du Lac; RICHARD J. NUSS, Brown, C.J., Neubauer, P.J., and Reilly, J.

2013AP002280-CR           State v. Roger M. Pratt

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Criminal Procedure – successive appeals

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:  JEFFREY A. WAGNER, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT I; Milwaukee; JEFFREY A. WAGNER, Curley, P.J., Kessler, Brennan, JJ.

2014AP000535-CR           State v. Wayne E. Williams

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Criminal procedure – habeas corpus

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:  WILLIAM SOSNAY, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT I; Milwaukee; WILLIAM SOSNAY, Kessler and Brennan, JJ., Thomas Cane

2013AP002221 Glenn M. Davis v. State of Wisconsin

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Medicare Fraud – Kickbacks – sufficiency of the evidence

The certification and recertification, via Form 485, of patients for treatment constitutes a “referral” under the Anti-Kickback Statute.

“[I]t is irrelevant that Patel’s patients received treatment from Grand before he signed their Form 485s. Even though care had begun, Grand could not have charged Medicare for that care prior to receiving a signed Form. The referral process, as far as Medicare is concerned, continues until the Form is signed. Patel could have withheld his signature in an attempt to extort larger payments from Grand. In fact, it seems that Patel once threatened to do just that when Encinares lacked the money to pay him. If Patel had decided not to sign the forms, Grand could not have billed Medicare. In other words, the prospect of a kickback gave Patel an increased incentive to charge Medicare for these services—exactly the type of incentive that Congress sought to eliminate by passing the Anti-Kickback Statute.”

Affirmed.

14-2607 U.S. v. Patel

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Dow, J., Flaum, J.

WI Court of Appeals
Motor Vehicles – OWI – probable cause

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Sheboygan County:  TERENCE T. BOURKE, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT II; Sheboygan; TERENCE T. BOURKE, GUNDRUM, J.

2014AP001991 City of Sheboygan v. Nathan J. Becker

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Motor Vehicles – OWI – ineffective assistance

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Sawyer County:  JOHN P. ANDERSON, Judge.  Reversed and cause remanded.

DISTRICT III; Sawyer;  JOHN P. ANDERSON,Hoover, P.J., Stark and Hruz, JJ.

2014AP001090-CR State v. Maurice J. Corbine

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Search and Seizure – warrantless searches – community caretaker exception

APPEAL from judgments and an order of the circuit court for Washington County:  TODD K. MARTENS, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT II; Washington; TODD K. MARTENS, Higginbotham, Sherman and Kloppenburg, JJ.

2014AP000058-CR State v. Timothy R. Vanweelden

WI Court of Appeals
Search and Seizure – warrantless vehicle searches

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Adams County:  CHARLES A. POLLEX, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT IV; Adams; CHARLES A. POLLEX, BLANCHARD, P.J.

2014AP002289-CR State v. Darrell G. Lewis

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Search and Seizure – warrantless vehicle searches

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Grant County:  CRAIG R. DAY, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT IV; Grant; CRAIG R. DAY, HIGGINBOTHAM, J.

2014AP001787-CR State v. Miranda K. Hinderman

WI Court of Appeals
Search and Seizure – search warrants – probable cause

APPEAL from judgments and an order of the circuit court for Sheboygan County:  TERENCE T. BOURKE, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT II; Sheboygan; TERENCE T. BOURKE, Brown, C.J., Neubauer, P.J., Gundrum, J.

2013AP001596-CR           State v. Gene E. Wolske, Jr

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Criminal
Sentencing – Crack cocaine

Section 3582(c)(2) only applies to a defendant “who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission” retroactively.

“The ‘sentencing range’ that must have been changed to permit relief under § 3582(c)(2) is not the base offense level or any other intermediate step in the guideline calculation, but the bottom-line, final range that was the basis for the sentence. Relief is not available if a retroactive amendment ‘does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.’ U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); United States v. Taylor, 627 F.3d at 676 (relief not available under § 3582(c)(2) where retroactive amendment reduced final offense level by one level but guideline imprisonment range remained 360 months to life); see also United States v. Robinson, 697 F.3d at 444 (relief not available under § 3582(c)(2) where final guideline range had been based on statutory mandatory minimum not affected by retroactive guideline amendment). Taylor was not eligible for a sentence reduction because the sentencing range of 188 to 235 months for his drug crimes was not changed by Amendments 748 and 750.”

Affirmed.

13-2978 U.S. v. Taylor

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Gilbert, J., Hamilton, J.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Sentencing – modification

APPEALS from orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:  DANIEL L. KONKOL and TIMOTHY G. DUGAN, Judges.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT I; Milwaukee; DANIEL L. KONKOL, TIMOTHY G. DUGAN, Curley, P.J., Kessler, J., Thomas Cane

2014AP000846-CR           State v. Aman Deep Singh

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Sentencing – modification – accurate information

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:  REBECCA F. DALLET, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT I; Milwaukee; REBECCA F. DALLET, Curley, P.J., Kessler, Brennan, JJ.

2014AP000165-CR           State v. Steven L. Sommer

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Sentencing – modification – new factors

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:  STEPHANIE G. ROTHSTEIN, Judge.  Affirmed.

DISTRICT I; Milwaukee; STEPHANIE G. ROTHSTEIN; Kessler, Brennan, JJ., Thomas Cane

2014AP001652-CR           State v. Walter E. Kyle

Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Sentencing – accurate information

Travis Deon Williams appeals the judgments of conviction, following guilty pleas, in four consolidated circuit court cases.  Williams also appeals the circuit court’s order denying his motion for resentencing.  We affirm.

DISTRICT I; Milwaukee; MEL FLANAGAN; KESSLER, J

2014AP002064-CR           State v. Travis Deon Williams